Reason Foundation - Policy Areashttp://www.reason.org/areas
info@reason.org (Reason Foundation)http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1Atlanta Transit Should Stay off Tracks and on the Roadhttp://www.reason.org/news/show/atlanta-transit-should-stay-off-tra
Georgia Public Policy Forum <p>This legislative session, the Georgia General Assembly is expected to tackle transportation reform, with many hoping lawmakers address both roadways and transit. It appears they will: At a recent transportation industry gathering, state leaders including Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle detailed the importance of transit.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Metro Atlanta has one of the most deficient transit systems of any major metro area in the country.</p>
<ul>
<li>A recent Brookings Institution study ranked Atlanta 10th worst in the country for combined access to transit and employment.</li>
<li>Transit serves only 38 percent of metro Atlanta residents. Only 22 percent of jobs are accessible by transit.</li>
<li>Only 3.4 percent of jobs are a 45-minute, one-way commute via transit.</li>
<li>Only 21.7 percent of jobs are accessible in 90 minutes.</li>
</ul>
<p>Put simply, metro Atlanta offers the worst transit service of any major metro area in the country. This service inefficiency places the greatest strain on transit-dependent riders who are often poor. Fortunately, successes and failures in Georgia and around the country provide a blueprint for service.</p>
<p>Despite our woeful transit system, some want to double down on an inefficient radial rail system that helped cause the problem in the first place. Radial rail systems are effective at transporting people between the suburbs and the central city. They work well in metro areas such as New York City, developed prior to World War II with a large percentage of their jobs downtown.</p>
<p>They are ineffective in post-World War II cities with dispersed land use and lower density such as Atlanta, where less than 20 percent of jobs are located within three miles of Downtown and more than half of the jobs are more than 10 miles from the edge of the central business district. Recent employment numbers show metro Atlanta employment is continuing to decentralize.</p>
<p>Some propose a rail system because it is &ldquo;what non-auto driving millenials want.&rdquo; In reality, most millenials drive cars; those who don&rsquo;t drive want an effective transportation system. They don&rsquo;t much care whether they travel by rail car, bus, or ridesharing application as long as gets them where they want to go &ndash; efficiently.</p>
<p>Further, metro areas that have tried to build extensive rail systems have had issues.</p>
<p>Due to costs, most regions have failed to build what they promised voters. In most instances, each locality lobbies to receive the first rail line, figuring that there will never be enough money to build the entire system.</p>
<p>We saw in 2012&rsquo;s Transportation Investment Act what happens when a politically oriented system rewards the well-connected instead of those most in need of transit service: racial inequality, useless transit lines and public animosity. Worse, the high costs of transit force many cities to cut bus service. This happened in Dallas and Houston: Both regions have added new light-rail systems to their effective bus systems; the operating and construction costs of rail forced cuts in bus service. Today, each system carries fewer passengers than when it operated as a bus-only system. And many commuters who lost their bus service are transit-dependent riders who lost their jobs due to cuts in service.</p>
<p>Even if Atlanta wanted to build a comprehensive rail system, the cost would be astronomical. Using Government Accountability Office costs for rail lines across the country:</p>
<ul>
<li>A heavy rail system would cost close to $30 billion</li>
<li>A comprehensive light rail system would total $20 billion</li>
<li>A comprehensive commuter rail system would also total $20 billion because most existing Atlanta railroad lines need to be double-tracked to accommodate passenger trains.</li>
</ul>
<p>Clearly, we do not have the resources to build a rail system.</p>
<p>By comparison, a comprehensive bus rapid transit (BRT) system with 20 lines and an expanded express bus system with 20 more lines could be developed for approximately $3 billion. One reason the cost is so much less is that buses and cars can share the running way infrastructure.</p>
<p>There are other advantages to the substantially lower capital costs:</p>
<ul>
<li>More money can be spent on operations, reducing headways (or the time between buses). This flexibility would allow the system to provide better service during heavy demand (such as Braves&rsquo; games) and reduce wait times.</li>
<li>The entire network can be implemented over 10 years instead of the 60 years it would take to implement a rail network.</li>
<li>More money can be spent upgrading local bus service, Atlanta&rsquo;s biggest transit weakness.</li>
</ul>
<p>A comprehensive bus network would include four components: local bus service that serves all areas; limited-stop bus that provides enhanced service during rush hour and on busy streets; BRT with technology features to quickly transport people longer distances on surface streets, and express bus service to transport people longer distances on freeways.</p>
<p>BRT can take advantage of existing arterial lanes to offer high-quality service. Express bus operators can use the network of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) and express lanes to offer high-quality, reliable express service on freeways. The new express lanes on I-75 in Cobb and Henry counties and I-85 in DeKalb and Gwinnett counties provide free passage to transit vehicles. To help improve express bus service, GDOT has plans to increase the size of the express lane network.</p>
<p>To examine how a bus-based network would work in Atlanta, consider North Fulton County. Instead of a $3 billion heavy-rail MARTA expansion from North Springs to Windward Parkway with three new stops, take advantage of the already-planned express lanes on SR 400 to offer high quality express bus service. Direct bus service would connect Windward with the Perimeter area and offer attractive pedestrian-friendly stops at Holcomb Bridge Road, North Point Mall and the Windward Avenue station. Add peak rush hour service that offers direct connections to Buckhead, Midtown and Downtown. Add regional service serving Norcross and Dunwoody. Then add local service on North Point Parkway and Holcomb Bridge Road to connect those communities and businesses to the SR 400 express bus service.</p>
<p>Then consider: For the same $3 billion MARTA expansion, we could add this level of service through most of the metro area.</p>
<p>Neither express bus nor BRT service are new to the metro area; in fact, both enjoy substantial popularity. MARTA offers two BRT routes on Memorial Drive and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority offers 34 express bus routes.</p>
<p>BRT and express bus have other major advantages. Implementation is faster: The time to plan and implement a BRT line is typically half the time to plan and implement a rail line. A bus network can also offer better network connectivity because local bus service can more effectively feed limited-stop, express or BRT service. BRT is also more flexible: Routes can be moved as needed and service frequency can be more easily enhanced.</p>
<p>Bus and BRT service can also be more effective at spurring transit-oriented development. Several reports have found that per dollar of transit investment, and under similar conditions, BRT leverages more transit-oriented development investment than light rail transit. It makes sense: With fewer funds needed to build the system, more can be spent on development.</p>
<p><em>Baruch Feigenbaum is a transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation. This article originally appeared in the Georgia Public Policy Foundation's&nbsp;<a href="http://www.georgiapolicy.org/transit-should-stay-off-tracks-and-on-the-road/">Forum</a></em></p>1014145@http://www.reason.orgFri, 30 Jan 2015 15:33:00 ESTbaruch.feigenbaum@reason.org (Baruch Feigenbaum)Streetcars are the Wrong Way to go on Columbia Pikehttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/streetcars-are-the-wrong-way-to-go
<p>In the hopes of improving &ldquo;livability&rdquo; conditions and stimulating real estate development, Arlington County officials are pressing on with their plan to replace bus service with a streetcar line on the Columbia Pike. Approved for construction in 2012, the 4.9-mile track-based line would connect Skyline in Fairfax County to Pentagon City in Arlington, a corridor in which demand for transit currently exceeds supply. Notwithstanding the sexy nature of trains, improving bus service would benefit residents more than switching to streetcars.&nbsp;</p>
<p>From the outset, this project has been expensive. At the time of the project&rsquo;s approval in 2012, cost estimates came in near $250 million. Operating the streetcar system will incur an additional $22 to $26 million a year. Arlington County officials originally hoped that the federal government would cover 30% and the state 14% of the county&rsquo;s $200 million share.</p>
<p>Since then cost projections have exploded. Changes in the size of streetcar vehicles, higher than expected engineering fees and new inflation and risk assessments have ballooned the streetcar&rsquo;s price tag to $333 million. Since last year, the State of Virginia has raised its contribution by $65 million to nearly one half of total project costs. Although this is in place of federal involvement, it nevertheless holds Virginia&rsquo;s nearly 4 million taxpayers liable for a project from which the vast majority will never benefit. The putative $4.4 billion in &ldquo;economic benefits&rdquo; that planners tout will, if anything, simply widen the growing wealth cap between the nation&rsquo;s capital and the rest of the country.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Not only are these costs massive and inequitable, they also create moral hazards that promise to plague construction. The prevalence of government grants in the county&rsquo;s funding scheme predisposes it to cost and schedule overruns. Because both county officials and contractors have shifted risk to taxpayers, neither party will work hard to minimize project creep. With seven years to go until the current completion deadline, there is ample time for costs to soar even higher. &nbsp;</p>
<p>In addition to their high cost, streetcars have two major disadvantages compared with buses. First, their reliance on tracks makes them highly inflexible. Streetcars are far more vulnerable to power outages than buses because they run on electrified rail. Recently, a streetcar in Tucson, Arizona had to be towed when a bolt of lightning struck its support wire. Similar incidents in Portland, Toronto and other cities demonstrate that bad weather can halt streetcar service even in the absence of a power grid failure. Similarly, car accidents on streetcar lines, or with the streetcars themselves, would lead to extensive backlogs. Because the Columbia pike streetcar will operate in mixed traffic and most drivers are inexperienced in sharing the road with this form of transit, Arlington can expect to see a rise in accidents and delays come 2021. In contrast, buses can navigate out of congested lanes or take alternate routes and are not constrained by bad weather. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>Second, streetcars have less capacity than their proponents claim. In Portland Oregon, for example, streetcars are much larger&mdash;66 feet versus 40 feet long&mdash;than buses and thus appear to hold more people. In actuality, however, they seat twelve fewer passengers&mdash;31 compared with 43&mdash;than the &ldquo;smaller&rdquo; buses. Although streetcars&rsquo; larger size allows more people to stand, double-decker buses close this gap cost-efficiently. Las Vegas&rsquo;s double-deckers each contain 85 seats and enough room to stand as many additional passengers. At $750,000 apiece these vehicles are far cheaper than the track-bound, infrastructure-intensive streetcars and offer passengers a far more comfortable ride.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Instead of spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on a deeply flawed mode of transit, planners could enhance existing bus service for a fraction of the cost. Increasingly, cities are upgrading their bus fleets with Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technology. This involves outfitting buses with radio/GPS emitters that send real-time updates on bus speed and location to traffic lights. Upon reception of the radio signals, the traffic light&rsquo;s internal timer prolongs green lights and shortens red lights for approaching buses.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Signal prioritization increases bus speeds and keeps them evenly spaced. As a consequence, passengers enjoy shorter wait and travel times. If supplemented by high capacity bus models and limited-access underpasses, ITS upgrades would allow buses to better satisfy transit demand on the Columbia Pike.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Arlington County&rsquo;s plans for the Columbia Pike place style over substance. Streetcars involve higher infrastructure costs, higher operational costs, unpredictable stoppages and uncomfortable travel for passengers. That planners characterize streetcar projects in terms of urban &ldquo;livability&rdquo; and &ldquo;development,&rdquo; first, and in terms of mobility and cost-effectiveness, second, is no mistake. Even at the local level, transportation policy ought to be about shortening commute times and saving taxpayer money; not gentrifying neighborhoods or stimulating commerce. While it is probably too late for Arlington to kill this boondoggle, other counties should see it as a cautionary tale of transportation policy gone wrong.</p>1013943@http://www.reason.orgThu, 24 Jul 2014 11:43:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Joseph Fichthorn)Urban Sprawl Does not Lengthen Commute Timeshttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/urban-sprawl-does-not-lengthen
<p>Urban planners, environmentalists and assorted commentators have long decried &ldquo;sprawl&rdquo; as a primary threat to effective surface transportation policy. The charge is simple: the continual annexation of the countryside by commuter residential neighborhoods has lead to an inefficient use of land, lengthened the distances between home and work and rendered people overly reliant on cars. This, critics assert, leads to more pollution, congestion and time spent on roads.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Regarding this last claim, however, ongoing research by professors Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson suggests otherwise. For the past thirty years, the two have demonstrated that actual commute time is not strongly correlated with sprawl.</p>
<p>In 1990, for instance, the average one-way commute was 22.4 minutes across all transportation modes; only 12.5% of commutes were over 45 minutes and only 6% were over an hour in length. In 1995, commutes fell to an average of 20.7 minutes. Statistics from 1969 were remarkably comparable at 22.0 minutes despite a rate of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth in the intervening years that heavily outpaced the addition of new road capacity.</p>
<p>While U.S. Census Bureau data shows that average travel time increased 3 minutes and 6 seconds from 1990 to 2000, a change in methodology accounted for a minute of this increase. Questionnaires for the earlier survey limited respondents to two digits (i.e. a maximum of 99 minutes) whereas the more recent one accounted for commutes longer than an hour and a half. Given that the greatest increase throughout the decade was in the &ldquo;90 minutes or more category,&rdquo; it is likely that 1990 data underestimated average commute times. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>Indeed, the most recent data is particularly damning for the purveyors of sprawl hysteria. As of 2011, average one-way commutes are identical to the 2000 statistic of 25.5 minutes. While the 2008 housing crisis and the related foreclosures certainly decreased commute times, the fact that changes in work-related travel have remained within a couple minutes since 1969 suggests a more permanent trend.&nbsp;</p>
<p>This trend of increasing VMT and stable commute times, referred to by some as the &ldquo;Commuting Paradox,&rdquo; has a number of potential explanations. One is that the classical model of a central business district has lost its relevance to the modern economy. The geographic diffusion of residential communities has invited a corresponding diffusion of job centers. Rural and semi-rural localities encourage commercial development by offering lower taxes and friendlier regulatory environments to businesses. By this logic, commute times remain steady as shorter polycentric commutes offset traditional &ldquo;rat races&rdquo; from suburb to city.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The rapid commercial development of the Tysons Corner area in Northern Virginia represents a particularly striking example in support of this theory. Boasting only a general store and cow pastures in the late 1950&rsquo;s, the area began attracting businesses in the 1960&rsquo;s following the opening of the Tysons Corner Center mall. After several Fortune 500 companies including Freddie Mac, Capital One and Booz Allen headquartered in the area, Tysons grew to become the 12<sup>th </sup>largest business district in the country with more commercial space than downtown Miami or San Diego. If not for these developments, denizens of the region&rsquo;s peripheral communities would almost certainly funnel into D.C.&nbsp;</p>
<p>If current demographic patterns are any indication, urban sprawl may actually help maintain steady commute times. As residential communities continue to expand outward, developers will take advantage of low land values, property taxes and minimal bureaucratic presence to create new commercial centers. Rather than denouncing the lifestyle and transportation choices of an increasingly large group of Americans, sprawl critics should propose constructive ways to reduce the cost of living and quality of life in urban areas.</p>1013912@http://www.reason.orgTue, 01 Jul 2014 12:48:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Joseph Fichthorn)With Pension Costs Soaring, Should New Jersey Commit Billions to More Open Space Preservation?http://www.reason.org/news/show/with-pension-costs-soaring-should-n
<p>The New Jersey Legislature is currently considering a bill&mdash;Senate Concurrent Resolution 84 (SCR84)&mdash;that would amend the state Constitution to dedicate six percent of the state&rsquo;s Corporation Business Tax revenues from FY2016 to FY2045 for the purpose of open space, farmland and historic preservation, and it would send this amendment on the ballot for voter approval in the next general election (presumably November 2014).</p>
<p>The new funding stream would be used to cover loans or grants for: (1) preserving land for recreation and conservation purposes under the state&rsquo;s Green Acres program (as well as to expand the &ldquo;Blue Acres&rdquo; program to purchase lands in flood-prone areas, or lands that buffer such properties, and demolish all structures and improvements thereon); (2) preserving farmland; (3) preserving historic properties; and (4) covering the administrative costs associated with these efforts.</p>
<p>Yet the state government already owns nearly 15 percent of New Jersey&rsquo;s total land area outright and, altogether, it has set aside nearly one-third of its total land area as protected open space, according to state figures. That is on par with the amount of total state land area already developed.</p>
<p>It is unclear why additional land preservation is needed when a significant portion of the state is already off-limits to development. Nor is it clear why there is a rush to lock in three decades of massive funding for land preservation when far higher spending priorities&mdash;primarily, rapidly rising government retiree pension and debt service costs&mdash;loom.</p>1013797@http://www.reason.orgWed, 09 Apr 2014 13:41:00 EDTleonard.gilroy@reason.org (Leonard Gilroy)Global Data Puts US Traffic Congestion in Perspectivehttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/global-data-puts-us-traffic-congest
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Would you believe that of the 24 most congested urban areas in high-income countries, only four are in the United States? That is among the findings of a recent analysis by navigation services provider Tom Tom. The Amsterdam-based company is now producing its own travel time index, similar to the well-known TTI reported on annually for US metro areas by the Texas A&amp;M Transportation Institute, which gives the ratio of travel time during peak periods and off-peak periods. (Thus, a travel time index of 1.33 means it takes 33% longer to make the same trip at rush hour.) Tom Tom's report for the second quarter of 2013 provides such indices for each of the large urban areas in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Western Europe, and the United States. The <em>average</em> of those indices is highest for New Zealand, followed by the averages for Australia, Canada, and Western Europe, with the United States bringing up the rear.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Next let's look at individual urban areas, regardless of country. The 24 most-congested urban areas in wealthy countries are as follows: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Most Congested Areas in Developed/Wealthy Countries </span></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">City</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Travel Time Index</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">City</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Travel Time Index</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Marseille</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.40</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Lyon</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.31</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Palermo</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.40</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Nice</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.31</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Vancouver </span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.36</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Stuttgart</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.30</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Rome</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.36</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Hamburg </span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.29</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 5;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Paris</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.36</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">London </span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.29</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 6;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Stockholm</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.36</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Perth</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.29</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 7;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Los Angeles</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.35</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Adelaide</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.29</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 8;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Sydney</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.35</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Honolulu</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.28</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 9;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Brisbane</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.34</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Seattle </span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.28</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 10;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Auckland</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.34</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Berlin</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.28</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 11;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">San Francisco</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.32</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Melbourne</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.28</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 12; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Christchurch</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.32</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Wellington</span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">1.28</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">I won't make you read the list of the 22 least-congested rich-country urban areas, but only seven of them are outside the United States (Seville, Valencia, Malaga, Bern, etc.). The 15 least-congested metro areas in this country include Cincinnati, Birmingham, Rochester, Louisville, Phoenix, Kansas City, and Indianapolis.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">At first glance, these results seem counter-intuitive&mdash;or at least contrary to what is taught in urban planning schools and believed by many transportation planners. The highly congested non-US urban areas generally have extensive mass transit systems and traditional central business districts&mdash;i.e., a monocentric urban form. The much less congested US urban areas are for the most part exemplars of what planners derisively call urban sprawl&mdash;i.e., multi-centric urban form, limited transit service, larger overall area, and significantly lower average densities. By the conventional wisdom, metro areas like Vancouver, Rome, Paris, Sydney, Hamburg, etc. should have lower traffic congestion than sprawling US urban areas like Phoenix, Indianapolis, and Kansas City.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Demographer Wendell Cox, who brought the TomTom findings to my attention, points out that there is, in fact, a strong association between higher densities and higher traffic congestion. But also, "Residents of the United States benefit because employment is more dispersed, which tends to result in less urban-core-related traffic congestion. Lower density and employment dispersion are instrumental in the more modest traffic congestion of the United States."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">Cox's <em>NewGeography</em> report on these findings is online at: <a href="http://www.newgeography.com/content/004048-new-zealand-has-worst-traffic-international-data"><strong><span style="color: #000058; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">www.newgeography.com/content/004048-new-zealand-has-worst-traffic-international-data</span></strong></a>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG /> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves /> <w:TrackFormatting /> <w:PunctuationKerning /> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas /> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF /> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables /> <w:SnapToGridInCell /> <w:WrapTextWithPunct /> <w:UseAsianBreakRules /> <w:DontGrowAutofit /> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark /> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning /> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents /> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps /> <w:UseFELayout /> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math" /> <m:brkBin m:val="before" /> <m:brkBinSub m:val=" " /> <m:smallFrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispDef /> <m:lMargin m:val="0" /> <m:rMargin m:val="0" /> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup" /> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440" /> <m:intLim m:val="subSup" /> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr" /> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="276"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading" /> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><! /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language:JA;} table.MsoTableGrid {mso-style-name:"Table Grid"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-priority:59; mso-style-unhide:no; border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language:JA;} --> <!--[endif] --> <!--StartFragment--> <!--EndFragment--></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: JA;">This article also appears in Robert Poole&rsquo;s <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/surface-transportation-news-122">Surface Transportation Newsletter #122</a>.</span></p>1013682@http://www.reason.orgFri, 03 Jan 2014 11:46:00 ESTbob.poole@reason.org (Robert Poole)Portland Oregon Cannot and Should Not Be Emulatedhttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/portland-oregon-cannot-and-should-n
<p class="MsoNormal">Portland, Oregon is known for its smart growth policies and urban growth boundaries. And Portland boosters happily provide tours to out-of-town government officials on the Portland model. City leaders from across the U.S. return to their local municipalities and try to emulate Portland. But as I found on a recent trip to Portland that is a big mistake for four reasons.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Firstly, Portland officials and leaders admit they have made mistakes. When Portland implemented its smart growth plan, it had no good U.S. model. As a result it made some bad choices. The city has engaged in too much traffic calming by deliberately slowing <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>almost every route. This has made it challenging to travel anywhere during rush hour. According to travel design guidelines, at least one route every &frac14; mile should offer unencumbered travel and Portland falls woefully short of this standard. Some types of vehicles need a congestion free alternative. A two-minute delay for an ambulance can be a matter of life and death.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The city has built several bike trails to nowhere. Bike trails are like roads; they must connect at least one origin with at least one destination. If the path travels for 1/2 block into a dead-end street, it is not going to be used. Yet Portland has built several of these type of bike trails. The city received federal grant funding and instead of funding a needed highway, it supported these trails.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The streetcar is a poor use of transportation resources. While many Portland boosters are excited about the economic development benefit of Streetcars, such boosters do not consider other transit options that may be more effective at transporting passengers from point A to point B. And even by streetcar standards the Portland Streetcar is exceedingly slow with an average speed is 8 miles per hour and an average gap of 15-18 miles between each train. An Oregonian reporter walking at 3.25 miles per hour actually walked the streetcar&rsquo;s route in less time than his wait and ride would have taken on the streetcar. Inclement weather may play a part in people&rsquo;s desire to ride the streetcar. But the streetcar funds certainly could have bought a lot of high-quality buses.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are too many light-rail stations and they are spaced too closely together. Stations downtown are spaced 0.1 to 0.2 miles apart. Typically stations are spaced between .25 and .50 miles depending on neighborhood density, topographic characteristics, etc. Stations spaced too far apart may discourage riders but spacing stations too close together slows down the speed of the train and also discourages riders.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Secondly, Portland is unique. In 1973, Portland passed an Urban Growth Boundary, a regional governance system and a light-rail plan. Portland was able to pass such a plan for many reasons:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1) It was a small city and had a small number of local officials</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2) The region had a lot of quality farmland and was worried it might be developed. (With increased agricultural yields this issue is completely moot today, yet it was important to some folks in the 1970&rsquo;s.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3) The population was/ very homogenous. Even today, more than 78% of all metro residents are white, fifth highest in the country. This is more than 20% above the national average and substantially below other major west coast metro areas such as San Francisco and Seattle. The metro area was also very liberal and very educated. A homogenous population made public acceptance of such a plan much more likely.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">4) Portland eschewed growth. Most politicians want their communities to grow, seeing growth as a political legacy. But Portland leadership was obsessed with keeping itself unique. As a result leaders wanted to adopt urban growth boundaries to keep Portland special.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thirdly and most importantly, Portland&rsquo;s urban growth boundary has not led to increased transit usage. Driving, either alone or as part of a carpool, is by far the dominant mode. Despite the urban growth boundaries and all the money poured into construction of light-rail and streetcars, public transport still accounts for less than 7.0% of all travel in the urbanized area. In 1985 before Metro&rsquo;s transit system was built, 2.1% of motorized travel was on transit. In 2009 after billions was spent to build the system, 2.1% of motorized travel was on transit. In 1980 Portland&rsquo;s work-trip transit market share was 9.5%. By 2007 it had fallen to 6.8%. So Portland spent billions of dollars to replace buses with trains and the percentage of people commuting by transit decreased.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Despite the hype, Portland&rsquo;s share of bicycling and walking are not that impressive. Even with all the bike paths and the extra wide roads in the region, biking only accounts for 2.5% of all travel in the urbanized area. In fact more than twice as many people work at home&mdash;a travel mode that requires virtually no resources at all.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Portland Census Commuting Population</p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-table-layout-alt: fixed; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes;">
<td style="width: 115.15pt; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="115">
<p class="MsoNormal">Mode of Travel</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 150.1pt; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="150">
<p class="MsoNormal">Metropolitan Statistical Area*</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 87.1pt; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="87">
<p class="MsoNormal">Urbanized Area**</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 80.55pt; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="81">
<p class="MsoNormal">City*</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="width: 115.15pt; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="115">
<p class="MsoNormal">Drove Alone</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 150.1pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="150">
<p class="MsoNormal">71.5</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 87.1pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="87">
<p class="MsoNormal">69.9</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 80.55pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="81">
<p class="MsoNormal">61.1</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;">
<td style="width: 115.15pt; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="115">
<p class="MsoNormal">Carpooled</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 150.1pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="150">
<p class="MsoNormal">10.5</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 87.1pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="87">
<p class="MsoNormal">9.5</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 80.55pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="81">
<p class="MsoNormal">9.4</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3;">
<td style="width: 115.15pt; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="115">
<p class="MsoNormal">Public Transportation</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 150.1pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="150">
<p class="MsoNormal">6.3</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 87.1pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="87">
<p class="MsoNormal">6.9</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 80.55pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="81">
<p class="MsoNormal">12.4</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4;">
<td style="width: 115.15pt; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="115">
<p class="MsoNormal">Walked</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 150.1pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="150">
<p class="MsoNormal">3.2</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 87.1pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="87">
<p class="MsoNormal">3.9</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 80.55pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="81">
<p class="MsoNormal">5.0</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 5;">
<td style="width: 115.15pt; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="115">
<p class="MsoNormal">Bicycle</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 150.1pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="150">
<p class="MsoNormal">1.8</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 87.1pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="87">
<p class="MsoNormal">2.5</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 80.55pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="81">
<p class="MsoNormal">5.1</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 6; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="width: 115.15pt; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="115">
<p class="MsoNormal">Worked at Home</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 150.1pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="150">
<p class="MsoNormal">5.7</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 87.1pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="87">
<p class="MsoNormal">6.3</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 80.55pt; border-top: none; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="81">
<p class="MsoNormal">6.0</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal">* Data from 2010</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">**Data from 2012&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fourthly, growth boundaries have major negatives. They may protect land but they also increase housing prices for the poorest residents. In fact, considering all factors such as income, college education, demand, etc. Portland was 37<sup>th</sup> of 37<sup>th</sup> or worst in housing affordability in the country. Growth boundaries have increased gentrification in some areas of downtown Portland, where wealthy individuals are displacing poor families. Low-income residents have been forced out of the Portland metro because there is a lack of affordable housing. Remaining lower income residents have much lower rates of high school completion and a much higher unemployment rate than in comparable metro areas across the country. Portland also has one of the highest rates of homelessness of any city in the country.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Additionally, growth boundaries have negative employment consequences. Portland has insufficient land to attract capital-intensive firms that would add jobs and increase the tax digest. Portland, OR has only one Fortune 500 company headquarters despite being the 24<sup>th</sup> largest metro area in the country.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For another city to adopt a successful urban growth boundary, it needs to have characteristics similar to Portland for the growth boundary model to work. These include a small close-knit leadership group, a homogenous population and little interest in growth. But even if a region were to have these features, would a region want a model that spends billions of dollars on transit, yet fails to noticeably increase transit ridership? Would a region want a model that makes its affordability worse than San Francisco or New York City? No region should want that model and so far none has adopted it. Political leaders that are awed by the Portland model would do well to take a cold shower in the facts before they try to implement such a model back home.</p>1013673@http://www.reason.orgThu, 19 Dec 2013 09:32:00 ESTbaruch.feigenbaum@reason.org (Baruch Feigenbaum)Streetsblog Throws Temper Tantrum After Transit Experts Recommend not Building Rail in Wake County, NChttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/streetsblog-throws-temper-tantrum-a
<p class="MsoNormal">What do you do if you are a rail advocacy group and a national panel of experts has just told you that rail is the wrong solution for a specific area? If you are Angie Schmitt of <a href="http://www.streetsblog.net/2013/11/19/professional-rail-critics-hired-to-weigh-in-on-north-carolina-project/">Streetsblog</a>, you question the merits of the professionals and claim that the Reason Foundation is somehow pulling the strings behind the scenes in a conspiracy theory similar to the one that contends Lee Harvey Oswald was not the only shooter in JFK&rsquo;s assassination.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What exactly is Streetsblog talking about? The Wake County Commission is examining how to improve its transit system. (Wake County, NC is home to Raleigh.) Neighboring communities (Chapel Hill in Orange County NC and Durham in Durham County NC) are planning on building a light-rail line between Chapel Hill and Durham. Certain elected officials are also interested in building rail lines between Chapel Hill and Raleigh, and Durham and Raleigh. In order to get some non-political advice, the Wake County Commission brought in three transit experts, Cal Marsella, former Chairman of the Regional Transit District in Denver and current transit consultant, Steve Polzin, Director of Transit Research at the University of South Florida&rsquo;s Center for Urban Transportation Research and Sam Staley, Managing Director of the DeVoe Moore Economic Center at Florida State University&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For some reason Ms. Schmidt is convinced that anybody who does not agree with her is wrong. And she implies that Sam Staley and Steven Polzin are not &ldquo;independent&rdquo; professionals.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let&rsquo;s just take a look at the backgrounds. Sam Staley, is Managing Director of the DeVoe Moore Center at Florida State where he teaches urban planning and urban economics classes. He has a PhD in Public Administration with a focus in Urban Planning from Ohio State University and Bachelor&rsquo;s and Master&rsquo;s Degrees in Economics. He works with academic planning professionals including the chair of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) light-rail committee. In 2012, he organized first transit conference in Florida State University&rsquo;s history. Staley also has own blog on Planetizen.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Steven Polzin has multiple engineering degrees including a PhD in Civil Engineering from Northwestern University. In his previous positions he has served in many roles including as a Senior Rail Planner. Polzin is on the editorial board of the Journal of Public Transportation and serves on several American Public Transit Association and Transportation Research Board Committees including Data Information Systems and Data Requirements and Programs. Polzin and the University of South Florida were recently awarded the honor of writing the Commuting in America series, a publication of the National Academy of Sciences. Polzin also contributes to Planetizen.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ms. Schmidt did not complain about Cal Marsella, former Chairman of the Denver Regional Transit District. And with good reason. Rail lobbyists assumed that Marsella who oversaw construction of FastTracks in Denver would support the Wake County train. But instead he agreed with Polzin and Staley that rail is not appropriate for Wake County. It is surely difficult to criticize Marsella who oversaw Denver&rsquo;s rail system as an anti-rail type.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And Mr. Marsella is not alone. Another rail friendly transportation planning professor John Pucher also does not think rail in Wake County will work. Pucher teaches at Rutgers but is spending a semester at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. He notes, &ldquo;The commuter rail plan and the light rail plan just don't make sense to me," "It's just so difficult in this very decentralized, very sprawled metropolitan area." And responding to the claim that Wake County officials have deliberately delayed the project &ldquo;The county commissioners of Wake County, in a way, have done the right thing," Pucher said. "I don't think you can expect the voters to understand all the details and analysis."&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I searched transportation experts&mdash;not politicians or industry lobbyists&mdash;and could not find a single transportation expert who thinks rail in Wake County is a good idea. Based on that finding, the commissioners did an excellent job&mdash;they could not find a transportation research professional who supports rail in Wake County, NC because such people do not exist. Perhaps what Angie Schmidt and others are upset about is not the views of the transportation experts but their inability to strong-arm a community into what appears to be a bad project. However, this is no excuse to throw a temper tantrum and accuse anybody who does not agree with your world-view of being a poopy-head. I look forward to the next Streetsblog column which discusses the facts instead of engaging in conspiracy theories.&nbsp;</p>1013627@http://www.reason.orgMon, 25 Nov 2013 15:35:00 ESTbaruch.feigenbaum@reason.org (Baruch Feigenbaum)Charlotte Transit Agency Uses Infographic to Mislead on Transit's Effectivenesshttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/charlotte-transit-agency-uses-infog
<p class="MsoNormal">The infographic that the Charlotte Area Transportation System (CATS) created to help sell the public on plans to extend its light-rail line has so much spin, most folks will feel dizzy after reading it. As reported by Eric Jaffe in <a href="http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/09/charlotte-fights-its-anti-transit-foes-infographics/6747/">The Atlantic Cities</a><span class="MsoHyperlink">,</span> the agency created &ldquo;Truth About Transit,&rdquo; an infographic designed to promote the LYNX rail extension. While none of the claims is dead wrong, taken together they leave the impression that CATS rail is far more effective than it is in reality. What is missing is any background, context or objectivity. CATS came up with nine so-called myths; I will address the four most egregious.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Supposed Myth According to CATS</span>: Light rail ridership projections are inflated.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">CATS claim</span>: Charlotte&rsquo;s light rail ridership for the opening year was 53% <strong>over </strong>forecast.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Reality:</span> Long-term light rail ridership projections for Charlotte are inflated.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">How CATS spun this:</span> CATS actually released three different ridership figures. When it submitted the proposal to the federal government, it submitted a ridership forecast of 25,700. Then, after it received federal funding, it revised its forecast downward to 18,100. Finally, before the line opened it revised its forecast downward again to 9,100. Since, CATS used the 25,700 number to get federal funding, that is the correct number to use in calculations. To be charitable we calculated the percentages for the 18,100 figure as well.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Light rail ridership for the opening year was 30% <strong>under</strong> the official forecast and 8% over the revised forecast. Light rail ridership today is 47% <strong>under</strong> the official forecast and 25% <strong>under</strong> the revised forecast.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">According to calculations from the National Transit Database, at the end of its first full year LYNX ridership averaged 19,700 daily riders. However, the forecast the agency provided to the federal government for funding indicated 25,700 weekday riders. And the agency&rsquo;s revised forecast of 18,100 is similar to LYNX&rsquo;s best year.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">How did LYNX get the 53% over figure? It used rail ridership forecasts for the opening year of 9,100 riders, which the agency deliberately low-balled to make ridership look high. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The more salient point is that ridership has declined significantly from 2008. Today ridership averages 13,500 people. Why? Despite the recession ridership in cities with effective transit systems such as New York City and Washington is increasing. It is likely that many early riders viewed the system as a tourist attraction. They would ride it several times to see how LRT worked. Others tried if for a year or two and realized they could commute more quickly by car.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Supposed myth according to CATS</span>: Charlotte light rail carries fewer people than a lane of I-77.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">CATS Claim:</span> One lane of I-77 can move 2,200 people per hour, LYNX could transport 6,240 people per hour.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Reality: </span>Charlotte light rail carries far fewer people than a lane of I-77. For every passenger the LRT line moves, I-77 moves 5.7.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">How CATS spun this:</span> Of all CATS&rsquo; claims this comes the closest to being an outright lie. According to transit consultant Tom Rubin, on a weekday CATS currently carries approximately 4,054 passengers per directional route mile while I-77 moves approximately 23,471. According to basic math 23,471 is a lot larger than 4,054. <br /> <!--[endif]--></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">CATS further assumes total occupancy of 236 to justify its claim. It also assumes that trains will expand to 3 cars. But the current 2-car trains are underutilized so why would it expand them to three? Accepting the 3 car trains, this would require squeezing passengers into cars like sardines, something that works in China but will never work in Charlotte. And the high number of passengers will decrease the number of trains per hour that operate since full trains take longer to load and unload. (I realize Charlotte does not have experience with really full trains but that's how it works in New York City and Washington D.C. where they do.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Supposed myth according to CATS</span>: Transit is used in only 2-3% (home-work) trips made each day</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">CATS Claim:</span> CATS attracts up to 17% of commute trips into major employment zones</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Reality: </span>Transit is used by 1.9% of (home-work) trips made each day</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">How CATS spun this:</span> Yes, some corridors have higher transit service than others. This is as true in Casper, WY as in New York City. But the supposed myth that a very small percentage of Charlotte commuters use transit is a fact. No matter the spin 1.9% of commuters in the region, or 32,000 of 1,700,000 people, is a very small percentage. Worse, building and maintaining rail has caused the agency to cut back on bus service. So while the few people lucky enough to work at major downtown corporations can now use one rail line, the rest of the metro area is facing significant cutbacks in bus service. Many families who do not own a vehicle and cannot bike or walk to work now face longer transit commutes or no transit service at all. As a result, this type of new rail line can lead to fewer total people commuting by transit.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Supposed myth according to CATS</span>: Transit doesn&rsquo;t reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">CATS claim: </span>In regions with both rail and bus options, there are fewer vehicle miles traveled per capita than in bus only or limited transit cities</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Reality: </span>There is no proof that transit reduces VMT. It is possible; we just do not know.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">How CATS spun this</span>: While this claim is not as crazy as some of the others, there are no peer-reviewed studies that support it. Further the data CATS uses to back up its claim are laughable. First, VMT is influenced by a host of factors. Density is the most important but land-use, development patterns and politics also matter. The prevalence of transit is maybe the 25<sup>th</sup> most important factor.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Before we address this claim, let&rsquo;s correct CATS&rsquo; transit vocabulary. There is no such thing as &ldquo;Large Rail.&rdquo; It is either heavy-rail or high-capacity-rail. And there is no such thing as &ldquo;Small Rail.&rdquo; It is either light-rail or low-capacity-rail. And Bus Only is a bad term as well. There are many types of bus service&mdash;local, limited-stop, express, BRT, premium. There terms are very creative but no transit officials labels light-rail as small rail.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let&rsquo;s examine CATS comparison cities: New York and Dallas. New York City has 18 times more people than Charlotte. New York, has lower VMT because it is extremely congested, located on water and built before World War II when cars were less prevalent on a pre-planned street grid. Even without its fantastic transit network it would still have a much lower VMT.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dallas has seven times more people. And Dallas has a lower VMT because congestion is much more severe. Worsening congestion to lessen VMT is a perverse policy goal. Further, Dallas is the poster child for how not to build rail. Despite populations increases and the addition of a light-rail network, fewer people take transit in Dallas in 2013 then before the light-rail network was built. When a region spends billions to build transit and the total number of people commuting by transit declines, you have made some major mistakes.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Charlotte developed after World War II with no geographical boundaries when cars were more prevalent with one of the smallest population densities for any medium sized city in the world. As a result of these factors, not the quality of transit, Charlotte has a high VMT.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we take CATS logic at face value, CATS wants to spend lots of money on new trains while cutting bus service. First, this will cause economic hardship for transit dependent riders. Second, because the city has no money to expand its highways, congestion will be so bad that people will drive fewer miles. And those added trains, similar to ones in Dallas, will be mostly empty. Is that really a goal worth achieving?&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">CATS has exaggerated its ridership, its trains' real capacity, the importance of one train line and transit&rsquo;s effect on VMT. This same agency wants taxpayers money to extend a light-rail line that is currently underused. The agency hopes that since facts are not compelling, a little spin will do the trick. Here&rsquo;s hoping Charlotte taxpayers look at the facts.</p>1013538@http://www.reason.orgThu, 12 Sep 2013 15:20:00 EDTbaruch.feigenbaum@reason.org (Baruch Feigenbaum)Does California Really Need Major Land Use and Transportation Changes to Meet Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets?http://www.reason.org/news/show/does-california-really-need-major
<p><strong>Introduction</strong></p>
<p>California&rsquo;s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32, Nunez) requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) &ldquo;to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions levels in 1990 to be achieved by 2020.&rdquo;<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[1]</a> In other words, the Act requires the state of California to ensure that its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020 must be no higher than they were in 1990.</p>
<p>Subsequent legislation has emphasized the role that policymakers expect transportation and land use policies to play in reducing GHG emissions. SB 375 (Steinberg, 2008) said: &ldquo;Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32." Accordingly, SB 375 assigned responsibility for achieving its emission-reduction objectives primarily to the respective metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) for each major region in the state.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[2]</a></p>
<p>But how significantly do GHG emissions need to be cut to meet the targets set in the Global Warming Solutions Act? And what role might transportation and land use policies <em>really</em> play in reducing emissions?</p>
<p><strong>How significantly do GHG emissions need to be reduced?</strong></p>
<p>The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) are currently well along in the preparation and adoption of the state-required regional transportation plan (RTP), titled <em>Plan Bay Area</em>.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[3]</a> The plan is currently out for review in draft form, along with an accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[4]</a></p>
<p>The Bay Area&rsquo;s previous RTP&mdash;<em>Change in Motion &ndash; Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area </em>(2009)&mdash;claimed that emissions needed to be cut by 15% by 2020 to hit the 1990-level target.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[5]</a> The 2013 update goes even further, suggesting that a 25 to 35% reduction in GHG emissions is now needed from current levels.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[6]</a></p>
<p><em>Plan Bay Area</em> uses this as justification to shift surface transportation expenditures from roads to transit,<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[7]</a> impose restrictions and new costs designed to reduce driving,<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[8]</a> limit construction of single-family detached homes in the Bay Area<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[9]</a> and require that the majority of new residential construction be multifamily in designated areas around transit centers.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[10]</a> Indeed, the <em>Plan</em> anticipates that in 2040 multifamily and attached/townhouse residences will be so popular that prices of existing single family detached homes will drop.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[11]</a></p>
<p>Yet data from the California ARB and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) paints a very different picture of California&rsquo;s GHG emissions than ABAG and MTC&rsquo;s <em>Plan</em>:</p>
<p><em>Figure 1: U.S. and California Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990-2011</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://reason.org/UserFiles/rubinfig1.jpg" border="0" alt="Figure 1" width="412" height="283" /></p>
<p>Based on the most recent ARB report, GHG emissions in 2010 were 447.87 million metric tonnes.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[12]</a> This would only require a reduction of 4.7% to meet the 1990 target level&mdash;427 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO<sub>2</sub>E).<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[13]</a></p>
<p>That is a significantly smaller reduction than policymakers in the Bay Area are calling for. Yet for various reasons, even this 4.7% may still overstate the actual remaining GHG emission reduction requirement.</p>
<p><strong>Methodological Problems</strong></p>
<p>For starters, notice that the red line on the graph above (which covers 2000&ndash;2010) sits slightly higher than the blue line (which covers 1990&ndash;2004) for the period they both comprehend.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[14]</a> The more recent report is 1.84%, 2.12%, 3.11%, 2.86% and 1.78% higher than the earlier for the five years, respectively, for a simple average of 2.34% higher.</p>
<p>The reason for this disparity is that ARB has adjusted its current GHG inventory method to conform to new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) protocols and other change factors.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[15]</a> This means that a given amount of GHG emissions will be recorded as higher in the report covering 2000&ndash;2010 than in the report covering 1990&ndash;2004.</p>
<p>Crucially, however, ARB <em>has not</em> revised the 1990 GHG emissions figure upwards to reflect the new methodology. The effect of this is to increase the amount of GHG emission reduction required to meet the statutory target.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[16]</a></p>
<p>If we assume that the simple average 2.34% increase for the 2000&ndash;2004 year also applies to the 1990 level, to put all data on the same playing field, then the 2020 GHG emission target should actually be approximately 437 million metric tonnes. This would only require a 2.5% reduction from 2010 GHG emission levels.</p>
<p><strong>Has this target already been met?</strong></p>
<p>Now look at the black line on the graph above, which shows national GHG emissions, as reported by the EPA.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[17]</a> While the California and U.S. emissions lines do not track exactly, they do follow one another closely. (If the 1990-1999 totals are adjusted upwards by the 2.34% factor discussed above, and a simple linear regression is performed, the coefficient of determination&mdash;r<sup>2</sup>&mdash;is .72. While there are certainly differences between the GHG changes nationally and in California, the similarities far outweigh them.) Moreover, California, with over 12% of the U.S. population, is a major determinant of national GHG emissions.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[18]</a></p>
<p>From 2010 to 2011, national GHG emissions decreased by 1.6%. If we assume that California&rsquo;s emissions dropped by a similar amount, to approximately 441 million metric tonnes, then the remaining reduction needed to meet the original 1990 target would be 3%. The reduction required to meet the revised 1990 target would be just 1%.</p>
<p>Taking this a step further, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) provides monthly reports on carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions, which are released even faster than the EPA&rsquo;s GHG reports. As CO<sub>2</sub> emissions make up the vast majority of GHG emissions,<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[19]</a> CO2 emissions generally track closely to total GHG emissions. And national CO<sub>2 </sub>emissions were down 3.8% from 2011 to 2012.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[20]</a></p>
<p>If we assume that California GHG emissions fell at that same rate from 2011 to 2012, from the 441 million metric tonnes estimated above for 2011, then California GHG emissions for 2012 would be 424 million metric tonnes. That is 1% <em>below</em> the original 1990 target of 427 million metric tonnes and 2% <em>below</em> the revised 1990 target of 434 million metric tonnes.</p>
<p>Based on these calculations, California might actually have met its target of achieving 1990 levels of GHG emissions in 2012&mdash;just six years into the fourteen-year period that was allocated to this objective.</p>
<p><strong>The impact of transportation and land use on GHG emissions</strong></p>
<p>Transportation is one of the biggest factors in GHG creation, which is why SB 375 focused so much on GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles (LDVs).<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[21]</a> And here there is a most encouraging trend for LDV fuel economy, which has an extremely strong relationship with CO2 emissions: all else being equal, the fewer hydrocarbons, such as gasoline, that are burned to move a LDV a mile, the fewer GHG emissions are created.</p>
<p>The graph below shows the trend in the amount of energy used to move a <em>person</em> (not a vehicle) one mile, which reflects the average passenger loads for the various types of LDV and transit vehicles as well as the fuel economy of the vehicle:</p>
<p><em>Figure 2: U.S. Transit Industry (all modes combined) and Light-Duty Vehicle Average Passenger-Miles per Diesel-Equivalent Gallon</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://reason.org/UserFiles/rubinfig2.jpg" border="0" alt="Figure 2" width="417" height="287" /></p>
<p>Clearly, there is a strong upward trend for LDV economy, which bodes well for GHG emissions from this source.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[22]</a> On the other hand, national transit average fuel economy per passenger-mile has been almost flat for many years and there is little reason to expect any significant positive change in the future. Moreover, this situation is more likely to continue if policymakers continue to expand transit usage by expanding services into new areas with new modes of transit, as new service tends to be less productive in terms of average vehicle occupancy than pre-existing service. In short, expanding transit&mdash;at least in the way currently envisaged by U.S. policymakers&mdash;is unlikely to deliver lower GHG emissions.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[23]</a></p>
<p>It is also important to note that expanding transit may prove a very expensive&mdash;and far from cost-effective&mdash;way to reduce GHG emissions. For example, <em>Moving Cooler</em>, a report by Cambridge Systematics that advocated a &ldquo;smart growth&rdquo; approach to emissions reduction, indicated that its transit strategies would require expenditures of nearly $600 per ton of GHG removed in 2050.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[24]</a> This is well above the $50 per ton of CO2 equivalent removed that the IPCC regards as the upper limit on acceptable costs for GHG emissions reductions.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[25]</a></p>
<p><strong>What is the impact of the economic downturn?</strong></p>
<p>Some argue that the economic downturn is responsible for a major share of the decline in GHG emissions, and that once the economy picks up, GHG emissions will once again begin to rise. The implication of this assertion is that even if California has already met its GHG emission target, further policy changes are required to ensure that this environmental progress is not reversed when robust economic growth resumes.</p>
<p>But while there may be <em>some</em> truth in this argument, the case should not be overstated. As noted above, recent data suggests that the downward trend in CO2 emissions has continued (and strongly) in 2011 and 2012&mdash;even after the recession officially ended in June 2009.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[26]</a></p>
<p>Moreover, some progressive interest groups have forecast an ongoing downward trend in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) per capita as baby boomers retire and the newer generations reach maturity&mdash;swapping an auto-centric suburban lifestyle for central city living, with greater reliance on transit and smart phone solutions.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[27]</a> Even long-established transportation observers are projecting the slowdown and perhaps end of the long-term upward trend in VMT/capita.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[28]</a> If such predictions come to pass, the impact of stronger economic growth on transportation GHG emissions will be muted.</p>
<p>Indeed, as significant as changes in VMT/capita are to GHG emissions, it is likely that continuing improvements in LDV fuel economy will mean that any resumption in VMT growth should not increase GHG emissions from personal transport, as fuel economy improvements will outweigh them many times over. The Obama administration recently implemented new corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards increasing fuel efficiency to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[29]</a> To comply, the fuel efficiency of new vehicles will have to be nearly double current levels (average fuel efficiency was 28.6 miles per gallon).<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[30]</a> Further, as older vehicles are replaced, average fuel economy will continue to improve beyond 2025.</p>
<p><strong>What is the impact of land use on GHG emissions?</strong></p>
<p>As previously mentioned, ABAG and MTC&rsquo;s <em>Plan Bay Area</em> is currently out for review, accompanied by a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Referring to Table 3.1-29 of that report, "Comparative Annual Land Use GHG Emissions", we can construct the following table of reductions in emissions from land use changes:</p>
<p><em>Table 1: Reductions in GHG Emissions from Land Use Changes (Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalent &ndash; MTCO<sub>2</sub>E)</em></p>
<p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" style="background-color:#FFFFFF" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><br /></td>
<td><strong>Existing Condition 2010</strong></td>
<td><strong>Alternative 1 (2040) &ndash; No Project</strong></td>
<td><strong>Alternative 2 (2040) &ndash; Proposed Plan</strong></td>
<td><strong>Change, 2010-Alternative 1 (2040)</strong></td>
<td><strong>Change &ndash; Alternatives 1 to 2 (2040)</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Residential Subtotal</td>
<td>10,961,000</td>
<td>13,452,000</td>
<td>13,321,000</td>
<td>2,491,000</td>
<td>(131,000)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passenger Vehicles</td>
<td>19,383,000</td>
<td>14,927,000</td>
<td>14,631,000</td>
<td>(4,456,000)</td>
<td>(296,000)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Trucks</td>
<td>4,447,000</td>
<td>6,250,000</td>
<td>6,217,000</td>
<td>1,803,000</td>
<td>(33,000)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Buses</td>
<td>615,000</td>
<td>578,000</td>
<td>571,000</td>
<td>(37,000)</td>
<td>(7,000)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Other Vehicles</td>
<td>136,000</td>
<td>161,000</td>
<td>159,000</td>
<td>25,000</td>
<td>(2,000)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Due to Land Use Changes</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td>(469,000)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Total Regional Emissions</strong></td>
<td><strong>48,846,000</strong></td>
<td><strong>42,895,000</strong></td>
<td><strong>41,344,000</strong></td>
<td><strong>(5,951,000)</strong></td>
<td><strong>(1,551,000)</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</p>
<p>The total change from "Existing Condition 2010" to "Alternative 2 &ndash; Proposed Plan&rdquo; is a reduction of 7,502,000 Metric Tonnes of CO2 Equivalent (MTCO<sub>2</sub>E). According to the above schedule, the vast majority&mdash;almost 80%&mdash;of this is due to a reduction in GHG from transportation vehicles. Most of the rest is due to proposed changes to decrease LDV emissions that have nothing to do with land use.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[31]</a></p>
<p>Now, if we assume that 100% of the changes in GHG emissions from transportation vehicles between &ldquo;Alternative 1 &ndash; No Project&rdquo; to &ldquo;Alternative 2 &ndash; Proposed Plan&rdquo; are due to people driving less as a result of land use changes, then the grand total of the GHG emission reduction attributable to land use changes is 469,000 MTCO<sub>2</sub>E.</p>
<p>That is just 6.25% of the total reduction in GHG emissions from 2010 onwards, and represents less than 1% of the 2010 total emissions. This means that even if we accept the DEIR projections above as accurate, land use can hardly be seen as a major contributor to the overall reduction in GHG.</p>
<p>The remarks of ABAG President and Napa County Supervisor Mark Luce add some weight to this conclusion:<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[32]</a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>We're not going to move the greenhouse gas numbers substantially with this plan, anybody who says that we are is dreaming.</em></p>
<p>In fact the DEIR significantly overstates the contribution of land use to overall GHG emission reductions. The reason for this is that its energy analysis uses &ldquo;an average on-road vehicle fleet fuel economy of 25.03 mpg for 2040.&rdquo;<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[33]</a> But the newest national fuel standard is 54.5-mpg CAFE for 2025. In other words, LDV fuel economy for 2040 will be significantly higher than the DEIR states, likely 50% or more higher. This means that land-use driven changes in GHG emissions from transportation vehicles will be much less significant than the DEIR&rsquo;s analysis suggests.</p>
<p>Moreover, land use changes may be a very expensive way to reduce GHG emissions. The primary reason for this is that &ldquo;smart growth&rdquo; or &ldquo;compact development&rdquo; regulations tend to make developable land scarce, and therefore significantly increase housing costs for both owners and renters. Reason Foundation&rsquo;s <em>Reducing Greenhouse Gases from Personal Mobility: Opportunities and Possibilities</em> estimated that if the land use proposals contained in <em>Driving and the Built Environment</em><a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[34]</a> and <em>Moving Cooler</em>&mdash;two influential reports advocating a &ldquo;smart growth&rdquo; approach to reducing emissions&mdash;were adopted, additional consumer expenditures for housing would exceed $1.5 trillion (2010$) annually in 2050.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[35]</a> That translates to an expenditure per ton of GHG emissions reduction of $19,700&mdash;nearly 400 times the IPCC&rsquo;s &ldquo;upper limit&rdquo; expenditure of $50.</p>
<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
<p>We have shown that the GHG emission reduction needed to meet California&rsquo;s 2020 target is much smaller than some agencies believe. Unfortunately, this mistake is leading them to advocate far more significant changes to transportation and land use policy than are actually necessary on environmental grounds.</p>
<p>The latest data from the California ARB suggests that only a 4.7% GHG emissions reduction from 2010 is necessary to return to 1990 levels of GHG emissions. By revising the 1990 target to reflect updated GHG inventory methodology, that figure falls further, to 2.5% from 2010 levels.</p>
<p>Furthermore, by assuming that California&rsquo;s downward trend in GHG emissions from 2008-2010 continued in a similar fashion to the nation as a whole (per the figures from the EPA and DoE), it is possible that California&rsquo;s GHG emissions are already <em>lower</em> than they were in 1990. This is a far cry from <em>Plan Bay Area&rsquo;s</em> assertion that California needs to reduce GHG emissions by 25&ndash;35% from current levels to hit that 1990 target.</p>
<p>Even if further substantial GHG emissions reductions were required to meet the 2020 target, it is extremely unlikely that the kind of changes to transportation and land use policy that are being advocated would do anything to achieve them. Even ABAG/MTC&rsquo;s own methodology shows land use having a limited impact on GHG emissions, and in reality its impact will be even smaller than that analysis suggests, due to much higher LDV fuel economy standards than their methodology assumes. Transit, meanwhile, suffers from poor average fuel economy per passenger-mile&mdash;something that would likely worsen if existing transit policies were pursued further&mdash;and cannot, therefore, make a significant contribution to GHG emission reduction. Finally, approaches to GHG emissions reduction that focus on transit and land use policy are likely to prove extremely expensive relative to alternatives.</p>
<p>The upshot of this is that California&rsquo;s GHG emission targets, in and of themselves, provide little justification for efforts dramatically to change land use patterns or expand transit service. California&rsquo;s metropolitan planning organizations should take note. Continued improvement in energy efficiency and emission reduction is important, but future plans should be based on proper technical information and analysis, not someone&rsquo;s normative ideas about the way Americans should live, work and travel.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Endnotes</strong></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">1</a>] Legislative Counsel's Digest, page 1, paragraph 3, accessed May 12, 2013: <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf">http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf</a></p>
<p>The specific statutory requirement added may be found in HSC &sect;38550: "By January 1, 2008, the state board shall, after one or more public workshops, with public notice, and an opportunity for all interested parties to comment, determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level was in 1990, and approve in a public hearing, a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020. In order to ensure the most accurate determination feasible, the state board shall evaluate the best available scientific, technological and economic information on greenhouse gas emissions to determine the 1990 level of greenhouse gas emissions."</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">2</a>] Accessed May 12, 2013: <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf">http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">3</a>] ABAG/MTC, press release, " Draft Plan Bay Area Released: Public Invited to Comment Online or at Public Hearings," March 22, 2013, accessed March 24, 2013: <a href="http://www.onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan-bay-area/draft-plan-bay-area.html">http://www.onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan-bay-area/draft-plan-bay-area.html</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">4</a>] ABAG/MTC, <em>Plan Bay Area Draft Environmental Impact Report</em>, April 2013, page 2.5-24, accessed April 25, 2013: <a href="http://onebayarea.org/pdf/Draft_Plan_Bay_Area/Draft_EIR.pdf">http://onebayarea.org/pdf/Draft_Plan_Bay_Area/Draft_EIR.pdf</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">5</a>] MTC, <em>Change in Motion &ndash; Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area</em>, Final, April 2009, page 7, accessed May 13, 2013: <a href="http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/FINAL/T2035_Plan-Final.pdf">http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/FINAL/T2035_Plan-Final.pdf</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">6</a>] DEIR, page 2.5-24.</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">7</a>] ABAG/MTC, <em>Draft Plan Bay Area</em>, March 2013, Table 1, &ldquo;Draft Plan Investments by Function,&rdquo; page 65, shows 62% of total transit plus road funding going for transit. (It should be noted that 5% of the total funding is &ldquo;anticipated&rdquo;&mdash;in other words, there is no current approved source for such funds&mdash; but these are &ldquo;expected to become available within the plan horizon&rdquo; (<em>Plan</em>, pp. 62-63).</p>
<p>DEIR, Table 2.1-13: Typical Weekday Daily Person Trips, By Mode, page 2.1-9, shows the percentage of all trips taken by transit increasing from 5% to 7% from 2010 to 2040. While this increase is questionable for a variety of reasons, this still leaves 80% of trips taken on roads&mdash;along with a substantial portion of the transit trips&mdash;and almost all local and many longer-distance freight movements.</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">8</a>] "The Plan Bay Area climate policy initiatives emphasize clean vehicles and smart driving. The proposed Plan includes a suite of programs including incentives to: promote a switch to clean and electric vehicles, extend electric vehicle ranges, increase car sharing and van pools and implement a smart driving strategy with in-vehicle fuel economy meters plus an education campaign. The initiatives also include funding to invest more in the most successful Climate Initiatives Grants funded under Transportation 2035. These grants are testing innovative and creative ways to reduce transportation emissions." (DEIR, page 1.2-51).</p>
<p>Among other elements, this program includes a &ldquo;Clean Fuels Feebate Program,&rdquo; which would impose a fee on low fuel mileage vehicles to subsidize the purchase of higher fuel mileage vehicles (Plan, page 85); a proposed congestion pricing fee for San Francisco (<em>Plan</em>, page 82); and, for various Plan alternatives, a proposed &ldquo;Transit Priority Focus&rdquo; that would impose a development fee in high VMT areas (<em>Plan</em>, page 114), and a higher peak period toll on the Bay Bridge (DEIR, pp. ES-7 and 1.1-10), and a VMT pricing proposal (<em>Plan</em>, page 114).</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">9</a>] DEIS, page 2.3-5, &ldquo;By 2040 it is expected that the share of housing demand will decrease for single-family homes &hellip;;&rdquo; Table 2.3-2:Net Housing Supply and Demand by Building Type, 2010-2040, same page, shows demand for Detached/Single Family homes in 2040 to be 169,100&mdash;11%&mdash;lower than the supply of such homes in 2010.</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">10</a>] The <em>Plan</em> and DEIR focus on what they define as Priority Development Areas (PDA), and &ldquo;PDAs are expected to accommodate 80 percent (or over 525,570 units) of new housing and 66 percent (or 744,230) of new jobs.&rdquo; (Plan, page 55).</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">11</a>] DEIR, page 2.3-5, &ldquo;The projected oversupply of single-family homes is expected to reduce demand for other housing types by almost 170,000 as some households that would otherwise choose multifamily units instead opt for single family homes made more affordable due to excess supply.&rdquo; In other words, while the <em>Plan</em> projects that demand for multifamily homes and attached/townhouse homes will be far higher in 2040 than in 2010 (up 68% and 75%, respectively), the lack of demand for single-family detached homes (11% under 2010 supply of such residences&mdash;Table 2.3-2 for all data) will cause the price of single-family detached homes to drop compared to the price of multifamily and attached/townhouse homes, so that many households that would otherwise prefer multifamily or attached/townhouse homes will settle for the less desirable single-family detached homes. (We will leave it to the reader to make their own judgments about these projections of demand for, and prices of, homes in the Bay Area. However, it is worth noting that we know of no place in the U.S. where such changes have occurred. Moreover, we know of many areas where attempts to encourage non-single-family detached home usage by restricting additions to the single-family detached inventory has produced significantly higher prices for single-family detached residences.)</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">12</a>] ARB uses the term, "inventory," in this context, to refer to the total GHG emissions for a year, which is different than the common financial accounting utilization of the term, which would refer to the measurement of the emissions in the air at a point in time, such as year-end. In accounting terms, the ARB concept would be similar to "cost of goods sold."</p>
<p>ARB, "California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2010 &ndash; by IPCC Category" (IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an United Nations-sponsored organization) (summary report), accessed May 8, 2013: <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_ipcc_00-10_sum_2013-02-19.pdf">http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_ipcc_00-10_sum_2013-02-19.pdf</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">13</a>] ARB, Resolution 07-55, December 6, 2007, accessed June 9, 2013: <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/arb_res07-55_1990_ghg_level.pdf">http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/arb_res07-55_1990_ghg_level.pdf</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">14</a>] ARB, "California Greenhouse Gas Inventory &ndash; by IPCC Category" (summary report), accessed May 8, 2013: <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/arb_res07-55_1990_ghg_level.pdf"> http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/archive/tables/ghg_inventory_ipcc_<br />90_04_sum_2007-11-19.pdf</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">15</a>] ARB, <em>California&rsquo;s 2000-2009 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Technical Support Document,</em> page 1, accessed June 4, 2013: <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/doc/methods_00-09/ghg_inventory_00-09_technical_support_document.pdf">http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/doc/methods_00-09/ghg_inventory_00-09_technical_support_document.pdf</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">16</a>] ARB has changed its methodology for an important reason, namely to comply with the accepted IPCC international standard methodology for GHG reporting. However, attempting to perform a detailed revision of the results for the years reported solely under the previous methodology, 1990-1999, was not done and is not likely to be done because "&hellip; the 'gap' in the overlapping years is primarily driven by revisions to activity data (e.g., gallons of fuel consumed, number of cattle used is [sic] estimating enteric fermentation emissions, etc.) and occasional revisions to methodologies (e.g., updates to emission models). Note also that the percent change for a given year between the overlapping years is only about 2 to 3%, not enough to suggest that the earlier data and methods vastly over- or underestimated emissions." Source: Telephone conversation and e-mail exchanges with Webster Tasat, Manager, Emission Inventory Analysis Section, California Air Resources Board, May 22-24, 2013.</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">17</a>] EPA, <em>Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011 </em>(EPA-430-R-13-001), April 12, 2013, "Figure 2-1: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas," page 2-1, accessed May 8, 2013: <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013-Main-Text.pdf">http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013-Main-Text.pdf</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">18</a>] U.S. Bureau of the Census, California State &amp; County QuickFacts, accessed June 16, 2013: <a href="http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html">http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">19</a>] EPA, Table ES-2, "Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks," pp. ES-5 to ES-7, shows CO2 as 83.7% of total gross GHG emissions for the 2011 reporting year.</p>
<p>ARB, <em>Staff Report &ndash; California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emission Level and 2020 Emissions Limit</em>, November 16, 2007, Figure 1., "1990 Gross Emissions by Greenhouse Gas," shows CO2 as 89% of total gross emissions, accessed May 8, 2013: <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_report_1990_level.pdf">http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_report_1990_level.pdf</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">20</a>] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, <em>Monthly Energy Review</em>, May 2013, Table 12.1, &ldquo;Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Consumption by Source,&rdquo; page 159: <a href="http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/">http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">21</a>] &ldquo;<em>Light-duty vehicle (truck)</em> means any motor vehicle rated at 8,500 pounds GVWR or less which as a vehicle curb weight of 6,000 pounds or less and which has a basic vehicle frontal area of 45 square feet or less, which is:</p>
<p>(1) Designed primarily for purposes of transportation of property or is a derivation of such a vehicle, or <br />(2) Designed primarily for transportation of persons and has a capacity of more than 12 persons, or <br />(3) Available with special features enabling off-street or off-highway operation and use.</p>
<p>&ldquo;<em>Light-duty vehicle</em> means a passenger car or passenger car derivative capable of seating 12 passengers or less.&rdquo; 40 CFR 86.082-2, accessed June 19, 2013.</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">22</a>] Transit data is from American Public Transportation Association (APTA), <em>2013 Transit Fact Book: Appendix A: Historical Tables</em>, Tabs 3 (Passenger Miles), 38 (Electric Power Consumption), and 39 (Fossil Fuel Consumption), accessed May 11, 2013: <a href="http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/transitstats.aspx">http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/transitstats.aspx</a></p>
<p>All fossil fuel consumption is reported to the National Transit Database (the source of the APTA Fact Books) in diesel gallon equivalents by British Thermal Unit (Btu); electric kilowatt hours are converted to diesel gallon equivalents using a factor of 1 KWHr = 10.339 Btu (Stacy C. Davis and Susan W. Diegel (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) and Robert G. Boundry (Roltek, Inc.), <em>Transportation Energy Data Book</em>: Edition 31 (TEDB), July 2012, Oak Ridge National Laboratory for Vehicle Technology Program, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewal Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Table B.6, "Energy Unit Conversion," page B-7.</p>
<p>Light Duty Vehicles (passenger car and light trucks, which includes vans, minivans, SUVs, and four-wheel pickup trucks) data starts with TEDB, Table 4.21, "Car Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAF&Eacute;) &ndash; Standards versus Sales-Weighted Fuel Economy Estimates, 1978&ndash;2011, Cars and Light Trucks Combined, pp. 4-22. It is assumed that the all data is for gasoline motor fuel, which is converted to diesel equivalents using data from TEDB, Table B.4, "Heat Content for Various Fuels," page B-5, of 115,400 Btu/gal (net) for conventional gasoline and 128.700 Btu/gal (net) for diesel motor fuel, for a conversion factor of .8967 (this slightly understates actual light duty vehicle fuel economy, as there is a relatively small number of diesel-powered LDVs).</p>
<p>VMT was converted to passenger-miles traveled by the factors in National Household Travel Survey 2009, Table 16, &ldquo;Average Vehicle Occupancy for Selected Trip Purposes.&rdquo; (Values are given for 1995, 2001 and 2009, of 1.59, 1.63 and 1.67, respectively; for intermediate years, evenly separated intermediate values were utilized, 2009 value was used for 2010.)</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">23</a>] One potential way to reduce GHG emissions through expanded transit would be to emphasize service to marginally transit-dependent riders, particularly to reduce the utilization of older, less fuel-efficient, often poorly maintained and tuned vehicles. However, most of the major transit programs in California and nationwide are directed at high cost fixed guideway transit lines, which are very expensive&mdash;and generate very significant GHG emissions to build. (See Randal O'Toole, <em>Does Rail Transit Save Energy or Reduce CO2 Emissions?</em> accessed June 14, 2013: <a href=" http://americandreamcoalition.org/pollution/RailEnergy&amp;GHGs.pdf"> http://americandreamcoalition.org/pollution/RailEnergy&amp;GHGs.pdf</a>; and Todd Myers, <em>Light Rail on I-90 Will Do Little to Reduce CO2</em>, October 2007, accessed June 14, 2013: <a href=" http://americandreamcoalition.org/pollution/RailEnergy&amp;GHGs.pdf">http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/sites/default/files/I-90%20Full.pdf</a>). Indeed, most transit plans are aimed at building ridership among the more affluent, who generally drive newer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles, which further undermines transit&rsquo;s effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions.</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">24</a>] <em>Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions</em>, 2009, <a href="http://movingcooler.info/">http://movingcooler.info/</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">25</a>] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, &ldquo;Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective,&rdquo;2007, <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter11.pdf">http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter11.pdf</a> p. 660 (20&ndash;50 US$/tCO2-eq is $20 to $50 per GHG ton).</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">26</a>] National Bureau of Economic Research, &ldquo;US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions,&rdquo; accessed June 19, 2013: http://www.nber.org/cycles.html</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">27</a>] Benjamin Davis and Tony Dutzik, Frontier Group and Phineas Baxandall, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, for Public Interest Research Group, <em>Transportation and the New Generation &ndash; Why Young People Are Driving Less and What It Means for Transportation Policy</em>, April 2012, accessed June 14, 2013: <a href="http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Transportation%20%26%20the%20New%20Generation%20vUS_0.pdf">http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Transportation%20%26%20<br />the%20New%20Generation%20vUS_0.pdf</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">28</a>] David Pace and Don Pickrell, National Transportation Systems Center, U.S. DOT, <em>Driven to Extremes &ndash; Has Growth in Automotive Use Ended?</em>, May 23, 2013.</p>
<p>Alan E. Pisarski, <em>Have the Younger Population Lost Interest in Cars? &ndash; An Interim Report</em>, Fall 2012.</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">29</a>] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, &ldquo;President Obama Announces Historic 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standard,&rdquo; July 29, 2011, accessed July 2, 2-13: <a href="http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2011/President+Obama+Announces+Historic+54.5+mpg+Fuel+Efficiency+Standard">http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2011/President+<br />Obama+Announces+Historic+54.5+mpg+Fuel+Efficiency+Standard</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">30</a>] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, &ldquo;Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel Efficiency,&rdquo; August 2012, accessed June 20, 2013: <a href="http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2012/Obama+Administration+Finalizes+Historic+54.5+mpg+Fuel+Efficiency+Standards">http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2012/Obama+<br />Administration+Finalizes+Historic+54.5+mpg+Fuel+Efficiency+Standards</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">31</a>] This schedule does not identify where the remaining 1,082,000 MTCO2E of reductions from Alternative 1 to Alternative 2 come from. These are all from the "MTC Climate Policy Initiative": "The Plan Bay Area climate policy initiatives emphasize clean vehicles and smart driving. The proposed Plan includes a suite of programs including incentives to: promote a switch to clean and electric vehicles, extend electric vehicle ranges, increase car sharing and van pools, and implement a smart driving strategy with in-vehicle fuel economy meters plus an education campaign. The initiatives also include funding to invest more in the most successful Climate Initiatives Grants funded under Transportation 2035. These grants are testing innovative and creative ways to reduce transportation emissions." (DEIR, page 1.2-51) These "Climate Change Policy Initiative" changes have no direct connection with land use and can be implemented with or without land use changes. It is also questionable whether these proposals would prove successful in achieving the quantitative outcomes specified.</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">32</a>] ABAG Administrative Committee, March 9th, 2012, accessed May 29, 2013: <a href="http://mtcmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/audio/pc_2012-03-09.mp3">http://mtcmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/audio/pc_2012-03-09.mp3</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">33</a>] DEIR, page 2.4-8.</p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">34</a>] <em>Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel</em>, Energy Use and CO2 Emissions, a National Research Council report requested by the United States Congress, <a href="http://mtcmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/audio/pc_2012-03-09.mp3">http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12747.html.</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">35</a>] Wendell Cox, <em>Reducing Greenhouse Gases from Personal Mobility: Opportunities and Possibilities</em>, Policy Study No. 388 (Los Angeles: Reason Foundation, November 2011), page 17.</p>1013442@http://www.reason.orgWed, 03 Jul 2013 06:39:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Thomas A. Rubin)New Study Suggests Transportation Priorities for North Carolinahttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/new-study-suggests-transportation-p
<p>The Hartgen Group and the Reason Foundation have released <a href="/news/show/transportation-priorities-for-north">Transportation Priorities for North Carolina</a>, a report recommending several significant changes to North Carolina&rsquo;s transportation management process such as setting clear performance measures and using maintenance contracting. The election of both Governor Pat McCrory and new legislators to the North Carolina General Assembly provides a rare opportunity for North Carolina to examine its transportation system. The full report is available <a href="/files/nc_transportation_full.pdf">here</a> and the executive summary is available <a href="/files/nc_transportation_summary.pdf">here</a>. The analysis considered all transportation modes: highways, aviation, freight and passenger rail, ferry, transit and non-motorized transportation.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The report reviews prior studies, plans, visions, legislation and other state practices to identify suggestions for transportation improvements. The report also solicited suggestions from stakeholder groups and others familiar with North Carolina&rsquo;s transportation system. One-hundred fifty seven separate suggestions are analyzed by goal, time frame, mode, cost or savings potential, feasibility and regional equity.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The suggestions can be grouped into 3 categories. The first includes major changes to the transportation program that can be implemented by increasing maintenance and limiting&nbsp; expansions to highways of statewide signficance. One major recommendation included in this section is to constrain the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to merit-based project selection and to shift some of the savings to maintenance, major projects and rural safety. Fully implemented, these recommendations could save $50 million annually.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The second category includes several recommendations to strengthen maintenance management and project selection such as using head to head project evaluation, adding maintenance needs for funding formulas and contracting out maintenance. Fully implemented, these recommendations could cost $30 million but provide substantially improved system maintenance.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The third category includes 10 smaller recommendations that are intended to strengthen Long-Range Planning and improve communications. These measures should also increase organizational efficiency by making increased use of design-build flexibility and strengthen measures of project and performance delivery.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I want to highlight five report recommendations. More details on each can be found in the <a href="/files/nc_transportation_full.pdf">New Approaches</a> section starting on page 41.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">1) Public-Private Partnerships (PPP): While North Carolina has enabling PPP legislation, the state has made little use of PPPs. PPPs are not appropriate for all projects; typically PPPs are best for large or very large projects including new toll roads, new toll bridges, adding express toll lanes to congested freeways, major reconstruction of existing highways and major bridge replacements. PPPs have several major advantages including lower-risk funding, more total funding, greater risk transfer, guaranteed maintenance, minimized life-cycle costs, innovations. Additionally, these private partners pay taxes.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">2) Tolling: North Carolina depends heavily on per-gallon fuel taxes as its highway funding source. But as the fuel-tax is not a dependable revenue source, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Finance Commission recommended that fuel taxes be replaced as the primary funding source. North Carolina does not have the funding to substantially expand or rebuild any of its major freeways. Tolling freeways that need to be substantially rebuilt or expanded is one solution. However, any new tolling needs to be implemented carefully. North Carolina should NOT put a per-mile charge on existing highways but it should consider tolling new highways, new express or HOT lanes, and reconstructing and modernizing existing highways.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">3) Priced and Managed Lanes: Traffic congestion is a major problem especially in Charlotte and the Research Triangle areas. Adding Managed Lanes can substantially reduce congestion. Such lanes have the added benefit of improving transit service. There are several different types of Managed Lanes; all allow vanpools and buses to use the lane for free but some allow free access to 2 or 3 person carpools while others require carpools to pay a small toll. Potential candidates for Managed Lanes in North Carolina include I-40 in Raleigh and I-77 and I-85 in Charlotte.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">4) Interstate/Freeway Widening: A modernized widened Interstate system has three main benefits. First, it makes commuting quicker and less stressful. Second, it makes logistics and shipping more dependable. Third, easily navigable roads may increase tourism. While North Carolina uses a Level-of-Service D standard for widening highways, funding constraints may force the DOT to hold off on widening. (North Carolina DOT typically widens a highway from 4-6 lanes if it is expected to carry more than 58,400 to 67,900 vehicles per day depending on topography and truck share.) Some potential candidates for widening include I-26 in Asheville, I-40 near Hickory, Winston-Salem, Greensboro and Raleigh, I-77 between exits 4 and 31 and I-85 around Gastonia and between Kannapolis and China Grove.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">5) Performance-Based Highway Maintenance Contracting: Many transportation agencies in the United States have contracted some road and highway maintenance. However, outside of highway landscaping the NCDOT has made limited use of such contracting. Current best practices in highway maintenance contracting rely on longer-term, multi-year performance-based road maintenance contracts. The public agency defines an end goal and the contractor decides how best to meet that outcome. Such contracts create clearly defined performance measures and timetables. The Transportation Research Board has praised contracting as a way to reduce agency costs, increase service, change to a customer-oriented focus, shift risks from public agency to private contractors and other benefits. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">More details are available <a href="/files/nc_transportation_full.pdf">here</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">Reason recommends transportation solutions at the state and local level. Other recent state focused reports include:&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><a href="http://reason.org/news/show/20-years-of-highway-bridge-performa">Examining 20 Years of U.S. Highway and Bridge Performance Trends</a></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><a href="http://reason.org/news/show/1013047.html">XpressWest Train Likely to Fail, Costing Taxpayers Up to $6.5 Billion</a></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><a href="http://reason.org/news/show/chicago-mobility-reduce-congestion">Reducing Traffic Congestion and Increasing Mobility in Chicago</a></p>1013307@http://www.reason.orgWed, 03 Apr 2013 14:45:00 EDTbaruch.feigenbaum@reason.org (Baruch Feigenbaum)Solving the Parking Problem in DuPont Circlehttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/solving-the-parking-problem-in-dupo
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">One of our neighbors bought a genuine London Cab a couple of years ago. Importing such a vehicle is very challenging: the new cabs off the assembly line do not meet US emissions laws and those that qualify as antiques&mdash;and thus are exempt from such standards&mdash;are usually rusted through and unusable.&nbsp; The only way for a London Cab to be legally brought over (as this one was, based on the stickers in its window) is to have a team of mechanics completely rebuild an existing one, virtually from the bottom up, while clearly documenting each step of the operation. Needless to say this cab represents a pricey investment.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">However, such cabs are relatively cheap to store: Since our neighbor purchased his London Cab it has been parked on the street, in front of our building in the exact same space. The annual cost to its owner for the decal on his car that allows him to park it&nbsp;on our street is a mere $25.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">In some places a fee that low would make perfect sense, but we happen to live on the edge of two very dense, affluent neighborhoods in Washington DC where parking is exceedingly scarce. Private parking spaces rent out for as much as $350 a month, and a parking spot in an underground garage recently sold for $60,000.&nbsp; In other words, street parking is over 100 times cheaper than private parking.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">As a result, street parking is extremely difficult to find in our neighborhood. &nbsp;During nights and weekends, when people flock to the neighborhood to dine, a significant proportion of the traffic consists of people looking for a parking spot.&nbsp; Even during the day local residents who park on the street spend a considerable amount of time looking for an open space.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">The economist&rsquo;s solution<span style="color: #127000;"> </span>would be to charge something closer to the market price for the scarce resource of on-street parking, which is precisely what a local politician has suggested.&nbsp;The result has been predictable:&nbsp; He has been bombarded with vitriol well in excess of anything he&rsquo;s seen before, and he has since retreated from this stance.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">I get why this cohort might be opposed, but simple opposition does not make good policy:&nbsp;there are all kinds of government services that some folks would rather get for free but offering such services for free&nbsp;doesn&rsquo;t make economic sense. Our National Parks charge an entrance fee, for instance, and public high schools and colleges charge fans to come and watch football and basketball games in arenas and stadia paid for by tax money. They do so because failing to charge a fee would often result in overflow crowds and because asking those who use the facilities to defray some of the costs seems like a fair way to do things. I submit that the same logic applies to people who wish to park (or store) their cars on the street.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Those protesting the proposed parking permit increase offer a variety of arguments as to why it shouldn&rsquo;t go forward: Some suddenly discovered libertarianism and wish to keep the government from amassing more tax revenue to spend on its nefarious agenda, while others have protested this plan by arguing that it will have a disproportionate impact on the poor, who cannot afford to pay more for a parking fee.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">No one in my neighborhood is as worried as I am about the government amassing too much power or money (I suspect that is literally true, given that the Green Party typically fares better than Republicans in our precinct), but this isn&rsquo;t a valid concern here.&nbsp; The revenue that would be raised from&nbsp;this would be a pittance compared to how much the District generates from its ten percent sales tax and a personal income tax with rates that exceed nine percent, neither of which are apparently all that objectionable to my neighbors with automobiles. Offsetting this revenue by lowering property taxes in the neighborhood would be one trade-off that should assuage those with this complaint.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">And virtually free parking for all is a terrible way to help the lower class in our neighborhood, who are much less likely to own a car than middle or upper income households. If there were a goodly number of working poor who needed inexpensive parking to maintain their cars it would not be terribly difficult to devise a program that would give low-rate permits just to them.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&ldquo;Nearly free&rdquo; is a terrible price for a scarce resource, even if it is one that the government owns. Setting a price that reflects the value the market places on on-street parking would greatly alleviate the irritating parking shortage and raise more money in a progressive way than nearly any tax program could hope to accomplish.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Ike Brannon is director of research at the R Street Institute, a think tank based in Washington DC.</span></em></p>1013292@http://www.reason.orgFri, 29 Mar 2013 08:47:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Ike Brannon)E-Z Pass System on InterCounty Connector is a Curious Target for Smart Growth Grouphttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/e-z-pass-system-on-intercounty-conn
<p>My friends at <em>Greater Greater Washington</em> (GGW) write about Urbanism and Smart Growth. I do not often agree with them but I believe they bring a valuable viewpoint to the table. But occasionally they write an article that is so lacking in facts and logic that I do not know whether to laugh or cry. Such is the case with the <a href="/greatergreaterwashington.org:post:16468:md-toll-agency-pushes-more-driving-to-fill-little-used-road">article</a> MD Toll Agency Pushes More Driving to Fill Little Used Road. According to the article:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; tab-stops: 0in;">&hellip; the Maryland Transportation Authority, which oversees toll roads, has embarked on a campaign encouraging people to <em>drive</em> more.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am going to look past the sin of encouraging people to use their private property in the way they see fit and move onto the actual evidence of the crime. GGW sites as evidence the fact that the agency had a booth at the Bethesda Farmer&rsquo;s Market. The agency was there to encourage the use of the electronic E-ZPass system. The E-ZPass system is installed on many area roads in the metro area. The E-Z pass system allows customers who set up an account with any of the E-ZPass states to pay their tolls electronically&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are many advantages to electronic tolling. Electronic tolling saves taxpayers money because tollbooths and toll collectors are not required. Electronic tolling is safer because motorists do not have to come to a complete stop, reducing the speed differential between vehicles. And electronic tolling saves time because motorists do not have to fumble for money when stopping at the tollbooth.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">E-Z pass can be used on multiple roads. While some Maryland travelers will use it on the InterCounty Connector (ICC) others will use it on the I-495 Express Lanes or for the I-95 or I-895 Baltimore tunnels. Most Bethesda residents will probably use it for non-ICC purposes since the ICC runs roughly 15 miles north of Bethesda. If you are traveling to or from Bethesda, the ICC would almost never be a logical route.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The article next argues that the highway is expensive: 70 cents to travel one exit and $4 to travel the entire length of the road. Actually, this rate is only in rush hour. Outside of rush hour the price ranges from $1.60 to $3.20. But even during rush hour and even if I-495 is not congested, the high-quality road is still cheaper. How? If a customer travels from Laurel to Gaithersburg, chooses I-95 south to the ICC to I-270 north, he has chosen a 23-mile-route. If the customer chooses I-95 south to I-495 west to I-270 north, he has chosen a 31-mile route. That 8-mile difference equates to $4.44 in gas, and wear and tear on the car. That means the ICC more than pays for itself if traffic on both it and I-495 are at free-flow speeds. But of course I-495 is seldom at free-flow speeds. Rush hour conditions can last for eight hours a day and traffic frequently drops far below the 55 mile per hour speed limit on weekends, middays and evenings as well. This makes the ICC an even better deal.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While living close to enough to walk or bike to work may be certain New Urbanists&rsquo; dream scenario, in the real world people often cannot live next to their jobs for various reasons. Occupying either an apartment or a house in Bethesda requires a large income. Many workers do not make such an income. In two-person income households, one person may live far from work so the other can live nearby. In other situations the households may choose a residence in between. Some people live in a certain community for the schools offered. There are many Bethesda residents who work in Largo but choose to live in Bethesda because of the quality of the schools.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As this is the case and people choose to drive, New Urbanists and Environmentalists should support toll roads. Why? Because on toll-roads motorists pay close to 100% of the costs. As the gas tax no longer covers the entire cost of highway travel, motorists who travel on free roads are not paying the full costs. This helps in two important ways. First, the higher cost will discourage motorists who do not really want to make the trip. Underpriced highways leads to induced demand where travelers consume more highways than is optimal because the service is cheap. Second, as the government has more funds, it can spend more on other types of transportation including transit. Now, transit is often underpriced, which leads to induced demand. But that&rsquo;s an argument for another day.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let&rsquo;s now visit the claim that the ICC is underused. Since the road has opened in stages and the final section between I-95 and US 1 is still under construction, it is challenging to draw conclusions. However, on the section between I-270 and Georgia Ave, traffic averaged approximately 35,000 vehicles per day last month. The traffic counts on the eastern segment of 26,000 will almost certainly increase when the link to US 1 is opened. Since the highway was designed for traffic counts in 2030, it is a not a disaster if there is some extra capacity today. And there is actually little excess capacity. A six-lane highway such as the ICC is designed for between 40,000 and 60,000 vehicles per day. At 35,000 vehicles in 2012, I feel very confident the highway, which solves a growing area, will easily reach 40,000 by 2030. The bigger problem is that it may exceed 60,000 vehicles by that year.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">How about the claim that the state should work to decrease traffic counts on I-270, US 29 and I-95? First, the goal of the ICC was to relieve I-495 and other east-west roads. I-270, US 29 and I-95 run north-south. But reducing traffic on north-south roads is not a bad idea. I wrote an earlier blog posting on the need for an alternative north-south highway in DC in western Montgomery County. I am doubtful that Greater Greater Washington likes that idea. Promoting teleworking, and increasing cost-effective transit service including BRT is a great goal. But the reality is many residents will continue to be single-occupant drivers. And rather than waxing poetic about the 1920&rsquo;s when people lived in denser communities we should realize that we have to live in today&rsquo;s world.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I do agree with the author on one issue&mdash;the speed limit on the ICC is low. However, Maryland is already addressing this issue. The transportation authority has completed an initial evaluation of safety data and will complete a more detailed analysis before deciding whether to increase the speed limit. And the decision will come in the next three months. The likely top speed will be 60 miles per hour. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why does GGW oppose toll roads? Toll roads recoup the full costs for travel, decrease demand over non-tolled roads, and in some cases generate money for transit. I suspect the decision-making is guided less by actual logic and more by the goal of preventing any new roads. This approach is mystifying because in the end it will actually hurt GGW.</p>1013129@http://www.reason.orgFri, 26 Oct 2012 10:59:00 EDTbaruch.feigenbaum@reason.org (Baruch Feigenbaum)Innovators in Action: Making Phoenix a 24-Hour City--Privatizing City Permitting to Cut Red Tape and Drive Economic Developmenthttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/innovators-phoenix-permitting
<p>While many other cities are increasing the regulatory burden on starting or expanding businesses, policymakers in Phoenix, Arizona have recently taken significant steps toward reducing it. In our <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/phoenix-permitting-privatization">latest interview</a> in the <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/innovators-in-action-2012"><em>Innovators in Action 2012</em> series</a>, I sat down with Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio to talk about the city's new plan review and permitting reforms, how they came about and what they mean for economic development.</p>
<p>Regulatory delays and uncertainty in local government&mdash;particularly in permitting related to commercial and residential construction&mdash;tend to drive up the costs of development and can become so burdensome that they ultimately serve as a disincentive for economic investment. This used to be the case in Phoenix, until its City Council recently enacted reforms that shifted a significant portion of city permitting and inspection functions to the private sector and created 24-hour turnarounds for projects that used to take four to six months.</p>
<p>Phoenix is implementing a "self certification" model where architects and engineers who undertake city training and random audits can submit plans for a variety of residential and commercial construction projects (exceptions include high-rises, steep slope development and hazardous land uses) and be able to walk out with a permit, on the same visit. Next year, the city plans to go one step further by implementing online permitting, which will be even faster and more convenient for permit seekers.</p>
<p>In all, these reforms are intended to improve Phoenix&rsquo;s economic competitiveness and lower costs for taxpayers. Here's a brief excerpt from the interview:</p>
<blockquote><strong>Gilroy: What did Phoenix pass to help businesses get up and running faster?</strong><br /><br /><strong>DiCiccio</strong>: We created a model making Phoenix a 24-hour city when it comes to plan reviews and inspections. Walk in with your building plans, walk out with a permit and start construction that same day. Call for an inspector before 10 pm and get an inspection the very next day. That&rsquo;s huge, compared to our history and what happens in most metro areas.<br /><br />Phoenix shifted a significant portion of the planning and inspection functions to the private sector. Phoenix has instituted what&rsquo;s known as a &ldquo;self certification&rdquo; model, which means architects and engineers who have been through city training will submit plans and be able to walk out with a permit, on the same visit. That includes all new construction up to 75 feet, all tenant improvements; civil permits for industrial, commercial/office, multifamily and residential; and historic preservation. More than 100 professionals are now certified on the list.<br /><br />Next year, permits will be online, so they will be able to push a button and submit plans electronically. Today&rsquo;s 24-hour process will get even faster.<br /><br /><strong>Gilroy: How will Phoenix&rsquo;s permitting reforms help business owners?</strong><br /><br /><strong>DiCiccio</strong>: Getting permits quickly to do construction and improvements saves time and money. We also have greater predictability, so they will know when to lease, when they can build and when they should hire employees, for example. Unpredictability not only costs them time, money and market share, it also discourages some would-be entrepreneurs from even starting. When you&rsquo;re a small business trying to build your dream on savings and credit cards, months-long hold-ups can be devastating. We&rsquo;ve ended that.<br /><br />It also gives them a choice of whom they want to work with. Private sector architects and engineers may provide more targeted services to a particular industry or business owner, and I believe people must have that choice. Competition creates more and better innovation. Government can't specialize in every field, but the private sector can and does.</blockquote>
<p>The full interview is well worth a read and is <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/phoenix-permitting-privatization">available here</a>. For more on the subject, the <em>Arizona Republic</em>'s recent coverage of the new permitting reforms is <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/07/24/20120724phoenix-building-process-expedited.html">available here</a>.</p>
<p>[<em>Note to readers</em>: In previous years, we have published <em>Innovators in Action</em> in an annual report format, the <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/innovators-in-action-2009">last edition</a> having been released in early 2010. The publication has been on a temporary hiatus since then, but we have resumed publication in a slightly different format. In order to deliver timely content to our readers on a more frequent schedule, we're publishing one <em>Innovators</em> article per month on reason.org. Other articles featured in the <em>Innovators in Action 2012</em> series are <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/innovators-in-action-2012">available here</a>.]</p>1013036@http://www.reason.orgTue, 31 Jul 2012 17:49:00 EDTleonard.gilroy@reason.org (Leonard Gilroy)Making Phoenix a 24-Hour City: Privatizing City Permitting to Cut Red Tape and Drive Economic Developmenthttp://www.reason.org/news/show/phoenix-permitting-privatization
Innovators in Action 2012 <p>While many other cities are increasing the regulatory burden on starting or expanding businesses, policymakers in Phoenix, Arizona have recently taken significant steps toward reducing it.</p>
<p><img src="http://reason.org/files/diciccio_headshot1.jpg" border="0" width="250" style="float: right; margin: 3px;" />Regulatory delays and uncertainty in local government&mdash;particularly in permitting related to commercial and residential construction&mdash;tend to drive up the costs of development and can become so burdensome that they ultimately serve as a disincentive for economic investment. For example, a 2005 report by Denver, Colorado&rsquo;s development council found that delays in the city's development review and permitting process had increased the cost of development by three to five percent at that time, serving as a virtual tax on new projects and driving economic development to other nearby jurisdictions with lower regulatory burdens. This is a pervasive problem, with permitting processes in many cities taking up to six to eight months to complete.</p>
<p>This used to be the case in Phoenix, until its City Council recently enacted reforms that shifted a significant portion of city permitting and inspection functions to the private sector and created 24-hour turnarounds for projects that used to take four to six months. Phoenix is <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/07/24/20120724phoenix-building-process-expedited.html">implementing a "self certification" model</a> where architects and engineers who undertake city training and random audits can submit plans for a variety of residential and commercial construction projects (exceptions include high-rises, steep slope development and hazardous land uses) and be able to walk out with a permit, on the same visit. Next year, the city plans to go one step further by implementing online permitting, which will be even faster and more convenient for permit seekers.</p>
<p>In all, these reforms are intended to improve Phoenix&rsquo;s economic competitiveness and lower costs for taxpayers. While permitting and plan review processes may drag out for months in many other cities, the process now takes less than 24 hours in Phoenix for many types of projects. A <em>Fox Business</em> channel report by John Stossel showed that in Hong Kong, a person can walk into a government office and walk out with a permit. He wondered why this could not happen in the United States. Phoenix policymakers apparently agreed with that, paving the way for reform.</p>
<p>The deregulation and streamlining recommendations came from an ad hoc task force made up of architects, engineers, contractors, city staff, trade unionists, neighborhood activists and non-profit leaders. The task force was co-chaired by Councilmen Sal DiCiccio and Tom Simplot, who had co-chaired a similar group two years prior that had developed some permitting reform pilot projects that led to these substantial changes.</p>
<p>In July, Reason Foundation Director of Government Reform Leonard Gilroy sat down with Councilman DiCiccio to talk about these reforms, how they came about and what they mean.</p>
<hr />
<p><br /><strong>Leonard Gilroy, Reason Foundation: What spurred Phoenix policymakers to take action on permitting reform?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Sal DiCiccio, Phoenix City Councilman:</strong> I believe in the free market, so making government friendlier to private enterprises and competition is already a natural. But Phoenix &ndash; like so many cities &ndash; was getting in the way of businesses getting up and running during the worst recession in most of our lives. We wanted businesses to be able to create jobs quickly. That&rsquo;s not possible when it takes months to get approval for tenant improvements, much less a new building.</p>
<p>We figured that when someone is considering starting a business in this environment, or moving one here, they needed predictability of expenses and time, and government isn&rsquo;t good at delivering that. Entrepreneurs have built-in costs for financing, rent, marketing and some employees in addition to construction costs. Without greater speed and certainty, many of them wouldn&rsquo;t even start. We wanted to combine the greatest predictability and speed with solid safety measures. This should have happened anyway, but the recession and the need to create jobs boosted the urgency.</p>
<p><strong>Gilroy: What did Phoenix pass to help businesses get up and running faster?</strong></p>
<p><strong>DiCiccio:</strong> We created a model making Phoenix a 24-hour city when it comes to plan reviews and inspections. Walk in with your building plans, walk out with a permit and start construction that same day. Call for an inspector before 10 pm and get an inspection the very next day. That&rsquo;s huge, compared to our history and what happens in most metro areas.</p>
<p>Phoenix shifted a significant portion of the planning and inspection functions to the private sector. Phoenix has instituted what&rsquo;s known as a &ldquo;self certification&rdquo; model, which means architects and engineers who have been through city training will submit plans and be able to walk out with a permit, on the same visit. That includes all new construction up to 75 feet, all tenant improvements; civil permits for industrial, commercial/office, multifamily and residential; and historic preservation. More than 100 professionals are now certified on the list.</p>
<p>Next year, permits will be online, so they will be able to push a button and submit plans electronically. Today&rsquo;s 24-hour process will get even faster.</p>
<p><strong>Gilroy: How will Phoenix&rsquo;s permitting reforms help business owners?</strong></p>
<p><strong>DiCiccio:</strong> Getting permits quickly to do construction and improvements saves time and money. We also have greater predictability, so they will know when to lease, when they can build and when they should hire employees, for example. Unpredictability not only costs them time, money and market share, it also discourages some would-be entrepreneurs from even starting. When you&rsquo;re a small business trying to build your dream on savings and credit cards, months-long hold-ups can be devastating. We&rsquo;ve ended that.</p>
<p>It also gives them a choice of whom they want to work with. Private sector architects and engineers may provide more targeted services to a particular industry or business owner, and I believe people must have that choice. Competition creates more and better innovation. Government can't specialize in every field, but the private sector can and does.</p>
<p><strong>Gilroy: How does this help Phoenix taxpayers, and the city?</strong></p>
<p><strong>DiCiccio:</strong> First, faster job creation. A small restaurant can employ scores of people. One day&rsquo;s delay getting a business&rsquo; doors open is one more day of recession, at least for the owner and employees. More people working means more tax revenue and more private sector dollars spinning through the economy at a compounded rate.</p>
<p>While it&rsquo;s aimed at local entrepreneurs, companies elsewhere that battle bureaucracy and are considering other locations will be drawn to 24-hour, no-red-tape environment in Phoenix, meaning more jobs and a greater boost to the economy and a more diverse metro economy.</p>
<p>It also helps Phoenix&rsquo;s reputation as an innovative city, which also attracts economic development. And it evens out the boom and gloom cycle when it comes to hiring plan checkers and inspectors. In the previous real estate boom, Phoenix couldn&rsquo;t staff up quickly enough to accommodate. And when the market dropped, the city couldn&rsquo;t shed the public-union-represented employees as quickly as demand warranted. By putting that expansion and contraction element onto the private sector, the city can crank up faster in good times and not pay for unneeded work in less good times.</p>
<p>It also pushes the city to be more innovative, to find ways to get projects done instead of getting in the way. When customers (citizens and business people) can pick public or private, both sides know they have to satisfy the customers or they will switch over. It makes the city prove it can, for example, consistently do 24-hour inspections and do them well. It puts competitive pressure on city workers, which makes them better.</p>
<p><strong>Gilroy: Who helped get these reforms done? </strong></p>
<p><strong>DiCiccio:</strong> The ad hoc task force that came up with these recommendations was co-chaired by Councilman Tom Simplot and me. But it was an incredible collection of players, including those who traditionally are on opposite sides of the table. We had 125 citizen members on the task force, including business people, architects, engineers, real estate brokers, think tanks and homebuilders, but also city staff members (who would have to make it work), union representatives, non-profits and neighborhood activists.</p>
<p>Not everyone agreed with everything, of course, and there were some passionate battles coming up with something that would work and that we could agree on. Our planning staff, which is comparatively very pro-business, resisted some of the key changes, particularly involving privatization. At one point, union leaders walked out right before a key task force vote on privatization, killing our quorum. While the City Council is non-partisan, we do have five Democrats and four Republicans, and we had task force members talk with Council members in small groups to encourage their support. It took a lot of organization and planning not only to come up with the ideas but also to get them through.</p>
<p>But if you look at what&rsquo;s happening elsewhere in the country and world, we think one of the true achievements was our ability to unify and work together. I&rsquo;m a conservative Republican and Councilman Simplot is a moderate Democrat. And the Council, which is split almost evenly between the parties, voted unanimously or nearly unanimously for almost all of this.</p>
<p>It&rsquo;s a testament to what can happen if you have a good idea and people are committed to making things better. If we can do it with this group, perhaps it can be done elsewhere.</p>
<hr />
<p><em>Sal DiCiccio is in his third term as the Phoenix City Councilmember in District 6, having been twice elected in the 1990s and again in 2009. DiCiccio&rsquo;s goal is to reform an opaque and stodgy government that sees increasing taxes, fees and red tape as a solution to today&rsquo;s economic challenges. He wants to lower taxes and fees, make government more open and transparent and get out of the way of businesses creating jobs. DiCiccio believes that if Phoenix reforms the way it does business, it can be a model city in the country for defeating the recession. Sal is the oldest son of Italian immigrants who moved to the United States in the late 1950s. He earned a bachelor&rsquo;s degree in Business at Arizona State University and later worked for John McCain, then a first-term congressman.</em></p>
<p><em>Other articles in Reason Foundation's&nbsp;</em>Innovators in Action 2012<em>&nbsp;series are&nbsp;</em><a href="http://reason.org/news/show/innovators-in-action-2012">available online here</a>.</p>1013035@http://www.reason.orgTue, 31 Jul 2012 16:15:00 EDTleonard.gilroy@reason.org (Leonard Gilroy)California Parking Bill Needs Revisionshttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/california-parking-bill-needs-revis
<p>Last week the California chapter of the American Planning Association (APA) upset several groups including the website Market Urbanism by writing a letter to its members asking for comment on California Assembly bill 904. One version of the bill is available <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0901-0950/ab_904_bill_20120612_amended_sen_v94.pdf">here</a>. The bill requires maximum parking standards for certain types of communities. APA&rsquo;s letter to its California members includes the following:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><strong><span style="color: #434343; mso-fareast-language: JA;">APA California is not opposed to the concept of lower parking requirements near transit when a community decides it is right for them &ndash; the issue is that a one-sized-fits-all statewide standard is not appropriate.</span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: #434343; mso-fareast-language: JA;">AB 904, on and after January 1, 2014, would prohibit a city or county (including charter cities) from requiring minimum parking requirements in transit-intensive areas greater than the following:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: #434343; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[The bill authorizes] one parking space per 1000 square feet for nonresidential projects (including commercial, industrial, institutional, or any other nonresidential projects regardless of type of use); one parking space per unit for non-income-restricted residential projects; 75/100ths parking spaces per unit for projects that include both income restricted and non-income restricted units; 5/10ths parking spaces per unit for units that are deed restricted at least 55 years to rents or prices affordable to persons and families making less than 60% of area median income.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><span style="color: #434343; mso-fareast-language: JA;">The definition of &ldquo;transit-intensive area&rdquo; means an area that is within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop or within 1/4 mile of the center line of a high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan, including a major transit stop such as a High Speed Rail transit stop) included in a regional transportation plan but not completed.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #434343; mso-fareast-language: JA;">The proposed bill has both positives and negatives. The positives include introducing a market-based approach to parking, allowing local governments to set higher standards if it is appropriate for the community, granting certain exemptions to the law including rent control and deed-restricted housing and using substantially more quantitative standards than the old ITE approach. (Under the ITE standards, there were multiple categories for each business using insufficient data points and low r-squared values. For example, adult entertainment had multiple categories. The nude dancing category had separate subcategories for different types of nude dancing including fully nude, partially nude, etc.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #434343; mso-fareast-language: JA;">However, there are significant problems with the bill that outweigh its positives. First, the bill sets a statewide standard. California is one of the largest, most diverse states in the country. What is effective in San Francisco may not work in Truckee, CA.</span><span style="color: #434343;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #434343; mso-fareast-language: JA;">The bill applies one standard to all types of transit (i.e. heavy-rail, light-rail, BRT, local bus, express bus, etc.) and all times of day. Local bus service serves different areas than BRT or rail. The plan also applies to any planned transit service in a regional plan including HSR. It can take years before a planned system is actually built. In some cases, planned systems are never built. Waiting on a proposed but unfunded HSR system is crazy. Many systems operate only during rush-hours, others on weekdays but not on weekends. Some communities are served by multiple line both bus and rail. Others are served by only one bus per day. Applying one blanket solution is not the best approach.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #434343; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Although there are exemptions the criteria for meeting these exemptions is uncertain. According to the original version of the bill an area must prove it has insufficient walkability, insufficient transit service, that the lower standards undermine Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) or affordable housing and that the standards conflict with reduced off-street parking. In other words, a local area is exempt if it already has existing standards similar or more restrictive than the proposed standards. But if the area wants higher standards for 3 of the four reasons or because it believes transit will not work as well in that community, it appears there is no wiggle room. The bill&rsquo;s author has stated that she intended for communities to be exempted if any ONE of the FOUR reasons are true, not ALL FOUR of the reasons. She will try to add an amendment to the bill. However, I am currently basing my interpretation of the actual language in the bill not the intended language.</span><span style="color: #434343;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #434343; mso-fareast-language: JA;">The bill is sponsored by the California Infill Builders Association. The association is a trade group working to increase infill housing. As parking spaces cost money, for developers to be able to build these apartments/houses they need something in return. The something could be lower parking standards. Parking should be priced and I understand the desire for infill housing. However, the bill would be best originating from someone without a stake in the game. Such legislation can then be reviewed by a university researcher, the California Legislative Analyst&rsquo;s Office, and another independent party. The only professional transportation group that has weighted in, APA, is not a strong supporter of the bill.</span><span style="color: #434343;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #434343; mso-fareast-language: JA;">This bill presents a big government solution to a government created problem. Free market solutions should operate outside of big government meddling. If the government is restricting free-market parking pricing (which it is) the bill should end subsidies to automobile drivers and developers. All transportation modes should operate on an equal plane. Creating a subsidy to counter another subsidy is both expensive and counterintuitive.</span><span style="color: #434343;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #434343; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Assemblyman Nancy Skinner deserves credit for trying to encourage market-based pricing. And APA California could be more open to the concept. However, this bill is a big government state-imposed solution that may or may not offer exemptions, does not consider the different geographies of the state and does not separate existing from current transit service. As written this bill needs substantial changes. If the author&rsquo;s amendment passes, it still has some significant aspects that need fine tuning before it should be considered on a statewide basis.</span></p>1012955@http://www.reason.orgWed, 20 Jun 2012 09:08:00 EDTbaruch.feigenbaum@reason.org (Baruch Feigenbaum)Polling Metro Denver Voters' Support of Tax Hikes for Public Transithttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/polling-denver-voters-support-of-ta
<p>Last month I <a href="http://reason.org/blog/show/rtd-abandons-fastracks-tax-hike" target="_blank">wrote</a> on Reason Foundation's Out of Control Policy Blog about the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) Board's decision to abandon a proposed tax hike that would have doubled the current transit-dedicated, 0.4 percent regional sales tax along the Northwest Corridor.</p>
<p>For context, the new revenue would have specifically gone towards FasTracks, a regional transit program approved by voters in 2004 projected to cost $4.7 billion and be complete by 2017. According to the latest estimates, FasTracks costs ballooned up to $7.4 billion and won't be complete until 2042.&nbsp;For more on FasTracks see my previous posts <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://reason.org/news/show/rtd-abandons-fastracks-tax-hike&amp;sa=U&amp;ei=J422T-O5HeursAKy0O37CQ&amp;ved=0CAUQFjAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;usg=AFQjCNEgKfWg0ncmaOfRhA4cccJggLt7HQ" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://reason.org/blog/show/1012819.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/1012693.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p>Two major factors behind RTD's decision were uncertainty over voter support and ambiguity over the proposed use of funds. A reader recently sent me a <a href="http://fciruli.blogspot.com/2012/04/rtds-fastracks-tax-proposal-has-weak.html" target="_blank">poll</a> conducted by Ciruli Associates, a Colorado-based research and consulting firm, which sheds light on metro Denver voters' attitudes towards tax hikes for FasTracks. This poll was released prior to RTD's decision and likely played a role in their decision.</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://fciruli.blogspot.com/2012/04/rtds-fastracks-tax-proposal-has-weak.html" target="_blank">Ciruli Associates</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Ciruli Associates question in this survey used a historical context of the revenue provided for the project since its 2004 inauguration. &nbsp;Previously, polls have shown people like transit, especially light rail, and would like the system built out quicker. &nbsp;But, the decline in trust in government makes RTD and its ability to manage finances and the project an issue in this election.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>First, the broad numbers. 49 percent of voters support the tax increase, while 46 percent of voters oppose it. Only 17 percent of voters definitely support the tax increase, while 30 percent (almost one-third) definitely oppose it.</p>
<p><img src="http://reason.org/UserFiles/CiruliPoll_FasTracks_2012-1.jpg" border="0" alt="FasTracks Support and Opposition Denver Metro Area" title="FasTracks Support and Opposition Denver Metro Area" width="489" style="border: 1px solid black; vertical-align: middle;" height="365" /></p>
<p>Next, a breakdown by party affiliation. A majority of Democrats (65 percent) support the tax increase, while a majority of Republicans (57 percent) and independents, or unaffiliated, voters (56 percent) oppose it.</p>
<p><img src="http://reason.org/UserFiles/CiruliPoll_FasTracks_2012-2.jpg" border="0" alt="FasTracks and Party Support and Opposition Denver Metro Area" title="FasTracks and Party Support and Opposition Denver Metro Area" width="489" style="border: 1px solid black; vertical-align: middle;" height="335" /></p>
<p>Finally, a breakdown by geography. Ciruli Associates <a href="http://fciruli.blogspot.com/2012/04/rtds-fastracks-tax-proposal-has-weak.html" target="_blank">note</a> that interestingly, "Voters in the two counties that should receive the most benefit from the next phase of transit expenditure, Adams and Boulder, are among the least supportive of the tax increase. Even Denver is only mildly supportive."</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://reason.org/UserFiles/CiruliPoll_FasTracks_2012-3.jpg" border="0" alt="FasTracks and Counties Support and Opposition Denver Metro Area" title="FasTracks and Counties Support and Opposition Denver Metro Area" width="205" style="vertical-align: middle;" height="220" /></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">This poll was conducted from April 6-10, 2012 in the seven-county metro area known as the Northwest Corridor by Ciruli Associates for <a href="http://fciruli.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">The Buzz</a>. Ciruli Associates used RDD probability sampling with 500 voters and calculated a margin of error of <sup><span style="text-decoration: underline;">+</span></sup>&nbsp;4.4 percentage points.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">This poll was not widely cited in the lead up to the RTD Board's vote and only came to my attention today, however its results remain informative. Most Colorado transportation observers recognize that the relevant question is not if RTD will seek voter approval for another transit-dedicated tax hike, but when?</p>
<p>For related research, see Reason-Rupe's&nbsp;December 2011&nbsp;national poll on transportation and public transit <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/reason-rupe-transportation-infrastr" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>1012903@http://www.reason.orgFri, 18 May 2012 12:09:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Harris Kenny)No Such Thing as a Free Parking Spacehttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/no-such-thing-as-a-free-parking-spa
<p>While the benefits of market pricing are readily accepted for items like consumer electronics, it&rsquo;s difficult for people to accept the value of pricing on things they think should be free to the user (i.e. parking, road use, etc.). To adapt Milton Friedman&rsquo;s famous maxim: there&rsquo;s so such thing as a free parking space. There are in fact a myriad of problems associated with underpriced and zero-priced goods.&nbsp;</p>
<p>In the case of parking, Donald Shoup (parking guru and professor of urban planning at the University of California at Los Angeles) calculates that in some cases up to one-third of urban congestion is caused by drivers circling city streets to find a parking space. The lower rate of parking space turnover inhibits mobility making it more difficult to get from A to B. There&rsquo;s also a lost opportunity to generate revenue that could be re-invested in infrastructure, like more parking.</p>
<p>Cities around the world are working to fix the problems associated with underpriced and zero-priced government-owned/operated parking assets. One approach being explored in San Francisco is variable market-based parking pricing. The program is known as SFpark and is being implemented by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). The premise is simple: use technology to allow variable pricing in urban parking.&nbsp;</p>
<p>SFpark is accomplishing this goal by installing 8,300 wireless parking sensors for metered and unmetered parking spaces in eight pilot areas across San Francisco. Meters were also installed at the entrance and exist of several public parking garages, and separate control neighborhoods. Then, SFpark installed a data feed responsible for maintaining parking space sensors and meter data. Finally, the city replaced existing meters with new ones that accept joins, major credit/debit cards and SFMTA parking cards that operate for extending time limits. For more on the program, read my April 2011 reason.org commentary entitled &ldquo;San Francisco&rsquo;s Experimental Market-Based Parking Pricing Program&rdquo; available online <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/san-francisco-parking-commentary" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p>It&rsquo;s a logistically complex program highlighted by Michael Cooper and Jo Craven McGinty yesterday in <em>The New York Times</em>, they <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/program-aims-to-make-the-streets-of-san-francisco-easier-to-park-on.html?_r=2&amp;hp" target="_blank">write</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is too early to tell whether the program is working over all, but an analysis of city parking data by The New York Times found signs that the new rates are having the desired effect in some areas. While only a third of the blocks in the program have hit their targeted occupancy rates in any given month since the program began, the analysis found, three-quarters of the blocks either hit their targets or moved closer to the goal. The program has been a bit more successful on weekdays.</p>
<p>Of course, price is only one factor that influences behavior. About a fifth of the time prices rose but more spaces filled up, or prices fell but fewer people parked. And the full effects of the phased-in price changes have yet to be felt, because the most expensive spots cannot hit the $6-an-hour maximum until next year at the earliest.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So far so good. However some my critiques of the program from nearly a year ago still apply. As I wrote last April, By only using eight pilot areas, SFMTA is taking a gradual approach that excludes most destinations within the city, meaning many drivers&rsquo; behavior will not be impacted. It is also difficult to know what impact private parking garages may have in reducing the program&rsquo;s efficacy, since private parking garage prices do not seem to be included in SFpark&rsquo;s data feed. And lastly, SFMTA has severely restricted its ability to raise or lower prices in a dynamic way, meaning it will take a significant amount of time to equilibrate parking prices with demand.</p>
<p>San Francisco isn&rsquo;t the only city exploring alternative approaches to urban parking. Another noteworthy approach is implementing long-term concession public-private partnership (PPP) agreements whereby the city transfers operation of city-owned parking assets to a private operator. These types of PPP agreements are being successfully leveraged in cities like Chicago and Indianapolis.</p>
<p>For more urban parking, see my previous reason.org commentary&nbsp;<a href="http://reason.org/news/show/san-francisco-parking-commentary" target="_blank">here</a>, and reason.tv&rsquo;s interview with Donald Shoup (below):</p>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="278" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/uVteHncimV0?rel=0" width="489"></iframe></p>1012719@http://www.reason.orgFri, 16 Mar 2012 16:12:00 EDTinfo@reason.org (Harris Kenny)Sacramento City Council Proceeding with Arena Dealhttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/sacramento-city-council-proceeding
<p><em>The Sacramento Bee</em> <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/06/4317430/sacramento-city-council-approves.html#storylink=cpy" target="_blank">reports</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In a historic vote, the Sacramento City Council approved the financing plan Tuesday night for a $391 million sports arena in the downtown railyard.</p>
<p>By a 7-2 vote, the council accepted a nonbinding "term sheet" agreed to by city officials, the Sacramento Kings, arena operator AEG and the development firm slated to build the project.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Under the current term sheet taxpayers will be on the hook to give $255.5 million towards the arena project that&rsquo;s projected to be complete by the 2015-6 NBA season. Most of that money is expected to come from parking revenue, while officials are considering additional opportunities for asset divestiture to make up the difference. Additionally the Kings will spend $73.25 million and the Anschutz Entertainment Group (that will operate the arena) will spend $58.75 million. Pre-development and revenue sharing agreements are still being written.</p>
<p>Until recently, privatization of parking assets has been widely discussed as the way to generate revenue for the arena deal. This policy tool has been proven in cities like Chicago and Indianapolis, and soon Sacramento is expected to issue a formal request for proposals (RFP) from eleven interested firms.</p>
<p>However officials are also considering instead creating a municipal finance authority that would retain public operation of parking assets. The municipal finance authority would then issue bonds to fund the arena project and rely on future parking revenue to pay the bonds. Negligible formal analysis has been conducted on how this alternative scenario might play out.</p>
<p>Comments made by Councilmembers that voted for the deal are basically indistinguishable, but comments made by the two Councilmembers that voted against the deal provide insight into legitimate concerns with the project.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Councilmember Sandy Sheedy voted no <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/06/4317430/sacramento-city-council-approves.html#storylink=cpy" target="_blank">saying</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What we have in front of us is an incomplete plan&hellip; that is going to scoop up every spare nickel and dime. I don&rsquo;t think an arena is worth putting the city general fund at risk. I am not interested in pursuing the same path that has put Stockton on the verge of a bankruptcy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>Councilmember Kevin McCarty voted no&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/06/4317430/sacramento-city-council-approves.html#storylink=cpy" target="_blank">saying</a><span>:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>At this moment, I don&rsquo;t think this is a good enough deal for the city of Sacramento&hellip; What would happen if there are bad attendance numbers? A number of these deals around the country are based on rosy revenue projections. Our lingering city priorities, we can&rsquo;t ignore them. They exist. At this time, I think the risk is too great, and the rewards I don&rsquo;t think are there at this current date.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Councilmembers Sheedy and McCarty echoed concerns that my colleague Len Gilroy and I outlined in a March 2, 2012 op-ed in <em>The Sacramento Bee</em> entitled, &ldquo;Privatize Parking, But Not for the Kings.&rdquo; We wrote at the time, &ldquo;<a href="http://reason.org/news/show/privatize-parking-but-not-for-the-k" target="_blank">Despite arena boosters' rosy claims, research shows subsidizing new professional sports arenas is bad business for taxpayers</a>.&rdquo; We go on to explain that instead:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sacramento could invest the parking lease revenue to build infrastructure and transportation projects, pay down city debt or even shore up underfunded public employee pensions. Any of these steps would put the city on significantly better fiscal footing and deliver greater long-term benefits to taxpayers than the arena.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For more, read the full piece available online <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/02/4304951/privatize-parking-but-not-for.html" target="_blank">here</a> or <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/privatize-parking-but-not-for-the-k" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>1012697@http://www.reason.orgThu, 08 Mar 2012 11:49:00 ESTinfo@reason.org (Harris Kenny)Denver's RTD Weighing Options for Northwest Corridorhttp://www.reason.org/news/show/denver-rtd-weighing-options-for-nor
<p>In 2004 voters in Denver&rsquo;s Northwest Corridor approved raising a regional 0.4 percent sales tax, generating $894.6 million to build a Commuter Rail Transit (CRT) line known as the Northwest Rail Line by 2017. The proposed 41-mile diesel, 7-station diesel-powered (non-electric light rail) CRT would start at Denver&rsquo;s Union Station and would have stations in Westminster, Walnut Creek, Broomfield, Louisville, Boulder, Gunbarrel and Longmont. The Northwest Rail Line is one piece of a larger regional transit program known as FasTracks.&nbsp;Now, eight years later, Denver&rsquo;s Regional Transportation District&rsquo;s (RTD) estimated completion date stands at 2042, unless voters approve another tax increase bringing the cost up to $1.7 billion for completion by 2024.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Overall FasTracks is a multi-billion dollar transit expansion program that aims to ultimately comprise of 122 miles of CRT and light rail, 18 miles of bus rapid transit (BRT) and 21,000 new complementary parking spaces across eight counties. When voters approved FasTracks it was projected to cost $4.7 billion - these estimates have proven to be totally inaccurate. FasTracks&rsquo; system-wide capital costs increased again in last year&rsquo;s annual program evaluation, this time by $968.3 million, to a new total of $7.8 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars. Eighty-five percent of last year's increase came from revising Northwest Rail Line cost projections.</p>
<p>In light of recent cost revisions <a href="http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/nw/NW_3_Options_22212_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">the RTD Board of Directors is weighing three options for how to proceed with the rest of the Northwest Rail Line</a>. This decision will have a major impact on the Northwest Corridor&mdash;and RTD&rsquo;s larger FasTracks program&mdash;that will be felt for generations to come.</p>
<p>All three options assume a successful FasTracks sales tax election in 2012. This is a big assumption that should not be overlooked. <a href="http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_19932857?nstrack=sid%3A619756%7Cmet%3A300%7Ccat%3A0%7Corder%3A1#.TzbPd1YUc-4.email" target="_blank">The RTD Board is currently weighing doubling the 0.4 percent regional sales tax that voters approved in 2004</a> in order to finish the Northwest Rail Line. This tax increase was approved in a distinctly different economic climate.</p>
<p>If raising taxes is the way RTD is seeking funding for FasTracks projects, it may find opposition. For example last fall Colorado voters faced <a href="http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&amp;blobheader=application/pdf&amp;blobkey=id&amp;blobtable=MungoBlobs&amp;blobwhere=1251744086314&amp;ssbinary=true" target="_blank">Proposition 103</a> that <a href="http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&amp;blobheader=application%2Fpdf&amp;blobkey=id&amp;blobtable=MungoBlobs&amp;blobwhere=1251738975494&amp;ssbinary=true" target="_blank">would have raised taxes by an estimated $2.9 billion</a> for education spending. <a href="http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Results/2011/Proposition103.html" target="_blank">Prop. 103 was overwhelmingly defeated</a>, losing by nearly 40 percentage points (63.2-36.8) and failing in 62 out of 64 counties (passing in Boulder and San Miguel Counties). Boulder County was the only county in the Northwest Corridor to approve Prop 103 But it&rsquo;s difficult to predict how voters in other Counties might respond to the RTD measure in 2012. If the tax increase is placed on the ballot and is rejected by voters&mdash;or is not put on the ballot at all&mdash;then the entire FasTracks program will not be complete until 2042.</p>
<p>Assuming the RTD tax increase is placed on the ballot and is approved by voters, <a href="http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/nw/NW_3_Options_22212_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">the RTD Board will select and implement one of the following three options for the Northwest Rail Line</a>:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Option 1:</strong> RTD would complete the Northwest Rail Line as planned and extend the expected completion date from 2020 to 2024. Based on RTD estimates it appears Option 1 would cost taxpayers an estimated $1.7 billion for projected completion by 2024.</li>
<li><strong>Option 2:</strong> Like Option 1, RTD would complete the Northwest Rail Line as planned and extend the expected completion date from 2020 to 2024. RTD would simultaneously accelerate construction of select capital projects (like new RTD Park-N-Ride locations) and provide interim bus service for the Northwest Rail Line and U.S. 36 Rapid Transit Corridor Areas until the rail is complete. Once the commuter rail is finished, interim bus service would be rerouted to transport riders to/from the seven CRT stations. Finally, Option 2 would postpone the completion of six other FasTracks projects by approximately six months each, in essence prioritizing completing the Northwest Rail Line over the rest of the system. Based on RTD estimates it appears Option 2 would cost taxpayers an estimated $1.7 billion for projected completion by 2024.</li>
<li><strong>Option 3:</strong> In contrast to Options 1 and 2, Option 3 would replace the Northwest Rail Line with an expanded and enhanced BRT system. The Northwest BRT would operate in high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes along U.S. 36 and State Highway 119 and with transit priority on non-freeway routes. Additional enhancements include off-board fare collection, signal priority, and bus bypass lanes at intersections. Similar to the Northwest Rail Line, BRT would have established stations along the route with complementary parking infrastructure. Based on RTD estimates it appears Option 3 would cost taxpayers $894.6 million for projected completion by 2020, which would also be capped thereby limiting taxpayer liability.</li>
</ul>
<p>Option 3 appears to be the most prudent choice for policymakers, as evidenced by a <a href="http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/nw/BRT_v_CRT_Fact_Sheet_FINAL_REV_2_20_12.pdf" target="_blank">fact sheet issued by RTD</a> last month. BRT would be completed in 2020, four years earlier than CRT in 2024. BRT would offer service anywhere from three to six times more frequently than CRT during peak hours, and four times more frequently than CRT during off-peak hours. Estimated travel time for longer trips is comparable between BRT and CRT, while BRT allows for more frequent stops along the way.&nbsp;In the short run, BRT costs the same amount originally approved by voters ($894.6 million), whereas CRT costs nearly double ($1.7 billion). In the long run, BRT would require lower annual operation and maintenance costs than CRT would.</p>
<p><span>Prudence aside, RTD cannot unilaterally change the use of the tax and debt authorized for the FasTracks plan. Voters approved completing CRT for $894.6 million by 2014 and neither the dollar amount nor the time frame will be met. Regardless of which option the RTD Board selects they will need to seek voter approval before proceeding. I</span><span>f voters reject the ballot measure</span>&mdash;or if RTD decides to not pursue a tax increase&mdash;then the FasTracks system is estimated to be complete by 2042.</p>
<p>Pauletta Tonilas, a spokeswoman for FasTracks, effectively framed the conversation with the <em>Boulder Daily Camera</em> saying the goal is to find the option that would provide the &ldquo;<a href="http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_19932857?nstrack=sid%3A619756%7Cmet%3A300%7Ccat%3A0%7Corder%3A1#.TzbPd1YUc-4.email" target="_blank">most service to the most people to get them to the most places.</a>&rdquo; With that in mind, it will be interesting to see which option the RTD Board selects.</p>
<p><em>Harris Kenny is a Denver-based policy analyst at Reason Foundation (<a href="http://www.reason.org" target="_blank">reason.org</a>), a nonpartisan public policy think tank.</em></p>1012693@http://www.reason.orgWed, 07 Mar 2012 15:55:00 ESTinfo@reason.org (Harris Kenny)Privatize Parking, But Not for the Kingshttp://www.reason.org/news/show/privatize-parking-but-not-for-the-k
The Sacramento Bee <p>Sacramento's burning desire to keep the Kings in town has the city considering privatizing its parking meters and garages. By itself, the plan to bring the private sector in to modernize and operate the city's parking assets would be a good one. But taking the proceeds from a privatization deal to help build an arena and subsidize an NBA team is not.</p>
<p>The City Council recently voted unanimously to see which companies might be interested in operating the nearly 13,000 city-owned metered parking and garage spaces. Privatizing city parking assets makes a lot of sense. Cash-strapped governments do a poor job of maintaining and modernizing parking meters and facilities. And urban parking rates are rarely what they should be because few politicians want to be blamed for raising parking costs.</p>
<p>Over the past few years, cities like Indianapolis have successfully launched partnerships with private firms to generate significant capital for their cities, modernize their parking systems, and more efficiently price and manage them.</p>
<p>Indianapolis signed a 50-year contract in 2010 covering nearly 3,700 city parking meters. But instead of taking most of the payment money upfront, Indianapolis opted for a revenue sharing plan that is expected to net the city more than $600 million.</p>
<p>As part of the deal, Indianapolis gets new, high-tech parking meters that customers can feed via their smartphones. The company is required to replace all parking meters every seven to 10 years. And, perhaps most importantly, the city is reinvesting the funds raised into a range of street and sidewalk improvements that it would otherwise be unable to afford.</p>
<p>Spending the money wisely is vital and can boost a region. When Indiana leased the Indiana Toll Road to the private sector in 2006, officials invested the vast majority of the state's proceeds &ndash; a whopping $2.6 billion &ndash; into an interest-bearing account dedicated solely to statewide transportation projects. This allowed the state to fully fund a 10-year, $10 billion transportation program that, by the end of the year will have built 375 miles of new roads, 60 new interchanges, rehabilitated 800 bridges and improved pavement on more than 3,600 miles of existing roads.</p>
<p>By contrast, Sacramento will basically give its parking money to the Kings. Despite arena boosters' rosy claims, research shows subsidizing new professional sports arenas is bad business for taxpayers.</p>
<p>First, taxpayer subsidies to the arena are likely to be higher than advertised. In a 2005 study of major U.S. professional sports stadiums and arenas, Harvard University's Judith Grant Long found each NBA arena costs taxpayers $53 million more than advertised due to unexpected operating costs, capital improvements, municipal services and forgone property taxes that weren't accounted for in initial projections. Grant Long found that, across all major professional sports, taxpayers end up paying an average of 40 percent over initial facility cost projections.</p>
<p>Perhaps worse than the hidden costs, a large body of academic research suggests that sports arenas are economic losers for cities. A study by researchers from Vanderbilt University and Smith College found "there is no correlation between sports facility construction and economic development." Arenas tend to simply reallocate what's already there, as opposed to drawing new jobs and money into the local economy.</p>
<p>The Kings want a new arena. But taxpayers and the city don't need one. They need a better, more efficient government. And privatizing the parking system offers an opportunity to chart a better fiscal course for the city &ndash; unless the government wastes the proceeds.</p>
<p>Sacramento could invest the parking lease revenue to build infrastructure and transportation projects, pay down city debt or even shore up underfunded public employee pensions. Any of these steps would put the city on significantly better fiscal footing and deliver greater long-term benefits to taxpayers than the arena.</p>
<p>Government should focus on what is essential. It shouldn't be in the business of building NBA arenas. And it shouldn't run parking meters and garages, either. The current arena plan to do both is a steal for the Kings and an air ball for taxpayers.</p>
<p><em>Harris Kenny is a policy analyst and Leonard Gilroy is the director of government reform at Reason Foundation (reason.org), a Los Angeles-based think tank. This piece <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/02/4304951/privatize-parking-but-not-for.html" target="_blank">originally appeared here</a> in </em>The Sacramento Bee <em>on March 2, 2012.</em></p>1012680@http://www.reason.orgTue, 06 Mar 2012 08:00:00 ESTinfo@reason.org (Harris Kenny)[Op-Ed] Privatize Parking, But Not for the Kingshttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/bp-privatize-parking-but-not-for-th
<p>Sacramento is on the verge of becoming the third U.S. city to privatize its parking assets. As my colleague Leonard Gilroy and I explain in our recent op-ed in&nbsp;<em>The Sacramento Bee</em>&nbsp;entitled "<a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/02/4304951/privatize-parking-but-not-for.html" target="_blank">Privatize Parking, But Not for the Kings</a>":</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sacramento's burning desire to keep the Kings in town has the city considering privatizing its parking meters and garages.&nbsp;By itself, the plan to bring the private sector in to modernize and operate the city's parking assets would be a good one. But taking the proceeds from a privatization deal to help build an arena and subsidize an NBA team is not.</p>
<p>The City Council recently voted unanimously to see which companies might be interested in operating the nearly 13,000 city-owned metered parking and garage spaces. Privatizing city parking assets makes a lot of sense. Cash-strapped governments do a poor job of maintaining and modernizing parking meters and facilities. And urban parking rates are rarely what they should be because few politicians want to be blamed for raising parking costs.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The piece goes on to detail successful public-private partnerships for surface transportation projects, such as parking assets in Indianapolis and the Indiana Toll Road. Next we debunk arguments for using parking proceeds to finance the arena:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>First, taxpayer subsidies to the arena are likely to be higher than advertised. In a 2005 study of major U.S. professional sports stadiums and arenas, Harvard University's Judith Grant Long found each NBA arena costs taxpayers $53 million more than advertised due to unexpected operating costs, capital improvements, municipal services and forgone property taxes that weren't accounted for in initial projections. Grant Long found that, across all major professional sports, taxpayers end up paying an average of 40 percent over initial facility cost projections.</p>
<p>Perhaps worse than the hidden costs, a large body of academic research suggests that sports arenas are economic losers for cities. A study by researchers from Vanderbilt University and Smith College found "there is no correlation between sports facility construction and economic development." Arenas tend to simply reallocate what's already there, as opposed to drawing new jobs and money into the local economy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Finally, we conclude:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sacramento could invest the parking lease revenue to build infrastructure and transportation projects, pay down city debt or even shore up underfunded public employee pensions. Any of these steps would put the city on significantly better fiscal footing and deliver greater long-term benefits to taxpayers than the arena.</p>
<p>Government should focus on what is essential. It shouldn't be in the business of building NBA arenas. And it shouldn't run parking meters and garages, either. The current arena plan to do both is a steal for the Kings and an air ball for taxpayers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Read the full piece available online <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/02/4304951/privatize-parking-but-not-for.html" target="_blank">here</a>. For more on leveraging parking assets through public-private partnerships, see <a href="http://reason.org/blog/show/1007347.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://reason.org/blog/show/1007351.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/pirg-report-indy-parking" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>1012681@http://www.reason.orgSat, 03 Mar 2012 15:38:00 ESTinfo@reason.org (Harris Kenny)Hotels May Pony Up to Fund Convention Center Expansionhttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/hotels-may-pony-up-to-fund-conventi
<p>The economic benefits of sports stadia and convention centers are dubious at best. (See <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/01/ground-zero-in-urban-decline/singlepage">here</a>&nbsp;and <a href="http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-subsidizing-sports-stadiums">here</a>.) Often, taxpayers are asked to cough up hundreds of milllions of dollars (sometimes billions) to pay for facilities that almost exlcusively benefit private interests such as owners, players, and private investors. Such is the case playing out in Sacramento where the NBA is extorting the city to get a new $400 million arena. City council has been thankfully resistant to dumping more tax dollars into this abyss.</p>
<p>Now, local hotel chains and operators have come up with a plan to impose a new hotel tax to help fund the convention center expansion. This is a good sign because, as a direct beneficiary of these facilities, they are taking on more of the burden for financing them. This moves policy more toward a beneficiary and user pays principle for financing these facilities even if it doesn't fully privatize them. According to the <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/20/4203316/sacramento-hotels-may-tax-themselves.html">Sacramento Bee (20 January 2012</a>):</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">"Sacramento hotel owners are considering a plan to generate $1 million a year for the proposed downtown sports arena, officials said today.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">"The complicated, still-evolving plan is tied to a potential expansion of the Sacramento Convention Center.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">"Brian Larson, chairman of the Sacramento Convention and Visitors Bureau, said an expanded Convention Center could yield as much as $5 million a year in new hotel occupancy taxes.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">"Currently, the hotel tax goes mostly toward renovations of properties like the Convention Center and the Community Center Theater. Members of the City Council have swatted down proposals to earmark some of the hotel tax dollars to the proposed arena."</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Read more here: <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/20/4203316/sacramento-hotels-may-tax-themselves.html#storylink=cpy">http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/20/4203316/sacramento-hotels-may-tax-themselves.html#storylink=cpy</a></p>
<p>For a broader discussion of how special districts can be used to pay for these facilities, see the article <a href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/976884">1998 article in Public Administration Review </a>by David Swindell and Mark Rosentraub "Who Benefits from the Presence of Professional Sports Teams?"</p>1012535@http://www.reason.orgSat, 21 Jan 2012 10:06:00 ESTsam.staley@reason.org (Samuel Staley)Local Tea Party Activists Stump Plannershttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/local-tea-party-activists-stump-pla
<p>The Tea Party has stirred the pot in national politics, but apparently they're also making their mark in local politics and land-use planning. Anthony Flint recently wrote a lengthy lament for the <a href="http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2011/12/how-tea-party-upending-urban-planning/718/">The Atlantic Cities (Dec 14, 2011)</a> that pointed out how Tea Partiers are mucking up the process. Flint notes the irony that the Tea Party activists are actually taking a page from the activism of Jane Jacobs when she stood up to Robert Moses and his plans to put a highway through Greenwich Village in New York:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">"So it is with particular angst that many of these same planners now are forced to reckon with the modern-day Jane Jacobs, at least in terms of tactics and a libertarian streak: the Tea Party.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">"Across the country, Tea Party activists have been storming planning meetings of all kinds, opposing various plans by local and regional government having anything to do with density, smart growth, sustainability or urbanism. In California, Tea Party activists gained enough signatures for a ballot measure repealing the state&rsquo;s baseline environmental regulations, while also targeting the <a href="http://www.cp-dr.com/node/3011">Senate Bill 375</a>, the 2008 law that seeks to combat climate change by promoting density and regional planning.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">"Florida&rsquo;s growth management legislation was recently undone, and activists in Tampa helped turn away funding for rail projects there. A planning agency in Virginia had to move to a larger auditorium and ban applause, after Tea Party activists sought to derail a five-year comprehensive plan and force withdrawal from the U.S. Mayors Agreement on Climate Change.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">"What&rsquo;s prompting the ire is anything from a proposed master plan to a new water treatment plant, rules governing septic tanks, or a bike-sharing program. What&rsquo;s driving the rebellion is a view that government should have no role in planning or shaping the built environment that in any way interferes with private property rights. And in almost all instances, the Tea Partiers link local planning efforts to the United Nations&rsquo; Agenda 21, a nearly two-decade old document that addresses sustainable development in the world&rsquo;s cities &ndash; read as herding humanity into compulsory habitation zones."</p>
<p>Ultimately, Flint sees the Tea Partiers as driven by conspiracy theorists who really don't understand urban planning. Oddly, he cites a recent report by Ron Utt and Wendell Cox admonishing Tea Partiers to <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/focus-on-agenda-21-should-not-divert-attention-from-homegrown-anti-growth-policies">avoid tying their opposition to Smart Growth to the U.N.'s Agenda 21</a> because Smart Growth is largely a home-grown effort, not a global one, as evidence that the global conspiracy theorists are driving the anti-smart growth movement.</p>
<p>My read on local Tea Party activism is very different from Flint's. In a <a href="http://www.planetizen.com/node/46583">blog post a Planetizen.com before the November 2010 election</a>&nbsp;("Planning for Tea Parties), I noted that Tea Partiers are largely fiscal conservatives; they're reacting to bloated government spending and overreach and using the political process to move politicians to reduce government. Many of these activists are not well informed about the local planning process, but this doesn't make their concerns or complaints invalid. Moreover, just because they start from a ideological perspective that embraces a more limited government doesn't mean that their criticisms are purely ideological. On the contrary, more than one non-ideologue has emerged from a public hearing or charette (a planning tool used to get public input on a project) believing that the end result was effectively rigged regardless of input from the general public.</p>
<p>Fortunately, some planners recognize that these home-grown critics of government overreach have valid concerns. Nathan Norris has a very <a href="http://placeshakers.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/playing-tea-party-planning-and-agenda-21/">insightful and practical blog post at "Placeshakers and Newsmakers" (Jan 6, 2012) </a>on how practicing planners can work with local activists motivated by Tea Party issues. In short, Norris outlines a constructive four-step engagement process for professional planners. Planners should not dismiss Tea Party activists out of hand, and recognize they come from diverse perspectives. Planners should listen to their concerns, identify the issues that are most important to them, and engage them in the local decisionmaking process.</p>
<p>Many libertarians will continue to object to urban planning in principle, but at least Norris is laying out a strategy for making the process more productive, more inclusive&nbsp;and less ideological.&nbsp;This opens the door for reforms that might well advance the Tea Partiers&nbsp;political agenda, albeit incrementally.&nbsp;If they are able to infuse more transparency and accountability into the planning process, then everyone benefits. Just as Tea Party activists are not a monolithic bunch, neither are urban planners.</p>1012493@http://www.reason.orgSat, 07 Jan 2012 08:07:00 ESTsam.staley@reason.org (Samuel Staley)Whither the Back to the City Movement?http://www.reason.org/blog/show/whither-the-back-to-the-city-moveme
<p>Aaron Renn, the Urbanophile, has a <a href="http://www.newgeography.com/content/002514-back-city">useful post over at newgeography.com</a> that examines some of the data from the 2010 census on migration in and out of big cities. The takeaway? The back to the city movement is much ado about nothing...except for downtowns. Most people are fleeing to the suburbs, and the central cities continue to languish. According to Renn:</p>
<p>"Despite claims of an urban renaissance, the 2000s actually turned out to be <a href="http://www.newgeography.com/content/002202-rethinking-urban-dynamics-lessons-census">worse than the 1990s</a> for central cities.&nbsp; The one bright spot was downtowns, which showed strong gains, albeit from a low base.&nbsp; The resurgence of the city story seemed largely fueled by intra-census estimates by the government that proved to be wildly inflated when the actual 2010 count was performed."</p>
<p>But, there's a twist, Renn says. If we look at county-level tax data, the migration to suburban counties as slowed and migration into central city counties has remained flat or ticked up a bit. Renn looks at New York City, Washington, DC, San Francisco, and Philadelphia. This is good news for older parts of our metro areas. A Renn concludes:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">"Still, these are clearly figures that should inspire some at least small-scale optimism in urban advocates.&nbsp; There has clearly been a shift affecting the net migration in these cities. And the same pattern is visible, though less easily attributable to just the urban core, in a large number of other metros around the country. &nbsp;In particular, the fact the in-migration from the suburbs to the core held steady or even increased is a sign of some urban health.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">"Back to the city as a mass movement?&nbsp; Not yet.&nbsp; But it&rsquo;s certainly an improvement. These intra-regional migration statistics are key figures to keep an eye on as we look for any sign of a true inflection point in the overall population trends for America&rsquo;s urban centers. The whole pattern could also shift again --- in one direction or the other --- as the economy, albeit slowly, comes back to life and people once again get back into the housing market."</p>
<p>To me, this suggests that the pace of decentralization in metropolitan America might actually be slowing even if it doesn't represent a rush back to the city.</p>1012362@http://www.reason.orgSat, 05 Nov 2011 21:14:00 EDTsam.staley@reason.org (Samuel Staley)Detached Housing Still A Crucial Part of the American Dreamhttp://www.reason.org/blog/show/detached-housing-still-a-crucial-pa
<p><a href="http://www.newgeography.com/content/002506-more-americans-move-detached-houses">Wendell Cox has plowed through the Census data</a> and discovered the single-family detached home--the icon of American sprawl--isn't going away anytime soon. Nearly 80 percentof the households in the top 51 US metropolitan areas chose single-family detached housing over apartments, condominiums, duplexes, mobile homes, and boats. In fact, over the last decade, single family detached housing has increased its market share of total housing, even in metropolitan areas like New York-Newark. Writing over at <a href="http://www.newgeography.com">newgeography.com</a> (11/1/2011), Wendell also observes:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Another conventional assumption is that single family homes have been disproportionately abandoned by their occupants, particularly since the collapse of the housing bubble. This is also not true. In 2010 detached housing enjoyed a 92.4% occupancy rate in 2010 which is higher than the 89.4% occupancy rate in attached housing and 84.2% occupancy rate in multi-unit buildings. Because a more of the multi-unit housing is rental, it is to be expected that the vacancies would be the highest in this category. However, at the national level, overall vacancy rates rose the <em>most</em> in multi-unit housing, with an increase of 61%, from 10.7% in 2000 to 17.1% in 2010. The vacancy rate in detached housing rose at a slower rate, from 7.3% in 2000 to 10.7% in 2010, an increase of 48%. Attached housing &ndash; such as townshouses &ndash; have the slowest rise in vacancy rate, from 8.4% in 2000 to 11.0% in 2010, an increase of 32%.</p>
<p>This is not a trivial finding. Many in the planning community and leading urbanists are claiming that the housing recession has resulted in a "Great Reset," where American households will be choosing fewer traditional homes and living in more dense and urban environments. The data so far suggest that the "reset" may not be as great as some may think.</p>1012348@http://www.reason.orgTue, 01 Nov 2011 22:13:00 EDTsam.staley@reason.org (Samuel Staley)